Chapter Two
Offensive War
to Spread Islam
Muhammad and his successors initiated
offensive wars against peaceful countries in order to impose
Islam by force as well as to seize the abundance of these lands.
Their objective was to capture women and children and to put an
end to the poverty and hunger from which Arab Muslims suffered.
So, Islam was imposed upon Syria, Jordan, Palestine (Jerusalem),
Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Iran, all of North Africa, some parts of
India and China, and later Spain.
Undoubtedly, the concept of an offensive
war to spread the faith is a genuine Islamic concept; it is
known as a Holy War for the sake of God. We will see what Muslim
scholars have explicitly determined that this is the essence of
Islam. They also indicate that if sufficient military power is
available to Islamic countries, they ought to attack all other
countries in order to force them to embrace Islam, or pay the
poll tax and be subject to Islamic rule. Muhammad (as well as
all the Caliphs who succeeded him) called for holy wars . All
scholars and lawyers acknowledge that.
Those who say that the Islamic wars were
always defensive do not understand Islam and have not read
sufficient history. It should be evident that offensive wars to
spread Islam are the heart of the entire religion of Islam. They
embody the meaning of "Striving for the cause of God"—holy war
to make the Word of God supreme over the whole world. Our study
will be filled with objective quotes from the statements of
scholars, along with a throng of true stories.
The Sayings and Deeds of Muhammad
and His Companions
One of Muhammad’s popular claims is that
God commanded him to fight people until they become Muslims and
carry out the ordinances of Islam. All Muslim scholars without
exception agree on this. Muhammad said:
"I have been ordered by God to fight
with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there
is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger, and
that they establish prayer and pay Zakat (money). If they do
it, their blood and their property are safe from me" (see
Bukhari Vol. I, p. 13).
Scholars understood this claim to mean
the waging of offensive wars against unbelievers in order to
force them to embrace Islam as individuals or communities. This
is exactly what Muhammad himself did in carrying out
God’s commandment to him.
Azhar’s Scholars in Egypt
In his book, "Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s
Biography", the Azhar scholar, Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan
al-Buti says the following (page 134, 7th edition):
"The Holy War, as it is known in
Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war.
This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed
military power becomes available to them. This is
the phase in which the meaning of Holy War has taken its
final form. Thus the apostle of God said: ‘I was commanded
to fight the people until they believe in God and his
message ..."’
Dr. Buti deduces from Muhammad’s
statement that this is the concept of offensive war—this is Holy
War as it is known in Islamic jurisprudence. Notice by his
statement also that this matter is a duty incumbent on every
Muslim in every age. The time will come when East and West, as
well as politicians and military personnel all over the world
will realize that the real military danger is the Islamic
community. When the needed military power becomes available to
them, they will wage wars and invade other countries !
Saudi Scholars In his book, "The Method of
Islamic Law", Dr. Muhammad al-Amin clearly indicates:
"No infidel [unbeliever] should be left on
his land as it is denoted from Muhammad’s statement: ‘I was
commanded to fight the people¼
’"
This claim by Muhammad and its
generally-accepted meaning are recorded not only by these
contemporary scholars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but are also
quoted in the following sources:
° The Sahih
of al-Bukhari, part I, p. 13.
° The Sahih
of Muslim, part I, p. 267 (The Interpretation of the
Nawawi).
° The
Commentary of Ibn Kathir, p. 336
° The
Muhalla (the Sweetened), Vol. 4, p. 317
° "The
Ordinances of the Qur’an" by al-Shafi’i, p. 51, part II (on
the authority of Abu Huraira).
° Mishkat
of al-Masabih, part 1, p. 9.
Almost all major Islamic references have
quoted this statement because it is one of the most famous
sayings of Muhammad which he followed and which he commanded his
followers to implement.
Many provocative and painful events were
inflicted on individuals and tribes in the course of Muhammad’s
life. Muhammad, as we will see, used to exhort his followers:
"Invitation first (that is, call them
first to embrace Islam). If they refuse, then war."
In other words, he told his followers not
to kill anybody unless you first invite him to embrace Islam.
Only if he rejects it, must he be killed. This is evident in the
story of Abu Sufyan:
When Muhammad and his followers were
about to attack Mecca to subjugate it to Islam, his
adherents arrested Abu Sufyan, one of Mecca’s inhabitants.
They brought him to Muhammad. Muhammad told him: "Woe to
you, O Abu Sufyan. Is it not time for you to realize that
there is no God but the only God?" Abu Sufyan answered: "I
do believe that." Muhammad then said to him: "Woe to you, O
Abu Sufyan. Is it not time for you to know that I am the
apostle of God?" Abu Sufyan answered: "By God, O Muhammad,
of this there is doubt in my soul." The ’Abbas who was
present with Muhammad told Abu Sufyan: "Woe to you! Accept
Islam and testify that Muhammad is the apostle of God before
your neck is cut off by the sword." Thus he professed the
faith of Islam and became a Muslim.
There are many sources which record this
story:
° Ibn
Hisham, part 4, p. 11 ("Biography of the Prophet’)
° "The
Chronicle of the Tabari", part 2, p. 157
° Ibn
Kathir, "The Prophetic Biography", part 3, p. 549, and "The
Beginning and the End"
° Ibn
Khaldun, the rest of part 2, p. 43 and on
° Al-Sira
al-Halabiyya, Vol. 3. p. 18
° Al Road
Al Anf, part 4, p. 90, by Al Sohaily
It is also mentioned and attested to by
contemporary scholars such as Dr. Buti in his book, "The
Jurisprudence of Muhammad’s Biography", p. 277. He repeated it
on page 287 because such stories incite the admiration of the
Buti and bring him joy. Yet Dr. Buti feels that some people will
protest, especially liberals and the civilized international
society, who believe that faith in a certain creed ought not to
be imposed by the threat of death. Therefore, he said (p. 287)
the following:
"It may be said, ‘What is the value of
a faith in Islam which is a result of a threat? Abu Sufyan,
one moment ago, was not a believer, then he believed after
he was threatened by death.’ We say to those who question:
‘What is required of an infidel or the one who confuses
other gods with God, is to have his tongue surrender to the
religion of God and to subdue himself to the prophethood of
Muhammad. But his heartfelt faith is not required at the
beginning. It will come later."’
This is God in Islam, my dear friends—a
God who is satisfied with the testimony of the tongue of a
person who is under the threat of death. But "the heartfelt
faith" will come later! The important thing is to increase the
number of Muslims either by threat or by propagation!
Dr. Buti was more than frank, and we would
like to thank him for that, yet we would like to tell him that
Christianity rejects the testimony of the mouth if it does not
stem from faith that is rooted in the heart first. In
Christianity, a person has sufficient time to think quietly
before he makes his decision, as the Gospel says:
"Let each be fully convinced in his
own mind" (Rom. 14:5).
God reveals His attitude in the Bible when
He says:
"My son, give me your heart" (Prov.
23:26).
When the Ethiopian eunuch expressed his
desire to be baptized, the evangelist Philip told him:
"If you believe with all your heart,
you may" (Acts 8:37).
God even rebukes the people of Israel and
says:
"These people draw near to Me with
their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed
their hearts far from Me" (Isa. 29:13).
The story of Abu Sufyan reveals clearly
that Muhammad does not care much about the faith of the heart,
especially at the beginning, as Dr. Buti suggests. What is
really important is that professing faith is a natural response
to the threat of death. The threat is very clear: Testify that
Muhammad is the apostle of God or you will be beheaded. The
story concludes: Abu Sufyan professed the testimony of "truth"
immediately!
In his book, "The Biography of the
Apostle", part 4, Ibn Hisham says (page 134):
"Muhammad sent Khalid Ibn al-Walid to
the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him: ‘Call
them to accept Islam before you fight with them. If they
respond, accept that from them, but if they refuse, fight
them.’ Khalid told them: ‘Accept Islam and spare your life.’
They entered Islam by force. He brought them to Muhammad.
Muhammad said to them: ‘Had you not accepted Islam I would
have cast your heads under your feet"’ (refer to page 134,
and also see Al Road Al Anf, part 4, pp. 217, 218. You will
find the same incident).
We see in this story the main Islamic
concept: First, an invitation to accept Islam, then war against
those who refuse to do so. This was Muhammad’s order to Khalid
Ibn al-Walid. It is also noteworthy to examine Ibn Hisham’s
statement that "they entered Islam by force." Muhammad himself
told them later: "Had you rejected Islam, I would have beheaded
you and cast your heads under your feet." This was an undisputed
threat: Either they accepted Islam or they would have been
beheaded.
The brutal irony is that he uttered these
words with ruthlessness and relentlessness instead of
congratulating them on their new faith! What a strange man who
failed to show any love or genuine compassion. His act was an
act of a first-class terrorist. He did not congratulate them
because he knew that they entered Islam by force. Is this man
really the prophet of freedom, compassion, and human rights?
Listen carefully! These oppressive attitudes and actions are as
clear as the sun on a bright summer day. Muhammad’s words are
self-explanatory:
"Had you not accepted Islam I would
have beheaded you and cast your heads under your feet!"
What human rights! What compassionate,
kind, meek and noble characters! Undoubtedly, this alone is
enough to uncover the dreadful dark side of Muhammad’s character
and his religion.
Azhar scholar Dr. Buti adds on p. 263 of
his book:
"The apostle of God started to send
military detachments from among his followers to the various
Arab tribes which were scattered in the Arab Peninsula to
carry out the task of calling (these tribes) to accept Islam
If they did not respond, they would kill them. That was
during the 7th Higira year. The number of the detachments
amounted to ten."
Would God’s help be sought, Oh Muhammad,
to fight peaceful tribes whose only crime was that they could
not believe that you are an apostle of God? Satan (not God)
assists wicked people to commit these things!
No wonder all these tribes so quickly
became apostate and relinquished Islam after the death of
Muhammad. Abu Bakr Al Sadiq waged the aforementioned wars to
force them to re-embrace Islam. Dr. Buti states this in chapter
six of his book, under the title, "New Phase of the Mission". He
quotes a statement made by Muhammad which proves that those wars
were offensive wars. Muhammad said, "From now on, they will not
invade you, but you will invade them."
Now let us see what Muhammad’s followers
did who implemented the same principle:
Ali Ibn Abi Talib
In his book, "The Biography of the
Prophet" (part 3, p. 113), Ibn Hisham relates this episode:
"Ali Ibn Abi Talib encountered a man
called ’Umru and told him, ‘I indeed invite you to Islam.’
’Umru said, ‘I do not need that.’ ’Ali said, ‘Then I call
you to fight.’ (This was the same policy Muhammad used with
those who rejected his invitation.) ’Umru answered him,
‘What for my nephew? By God, I do not like to kill you.’
’Ali said, ‘But, by God, I love to kill you"’ (see Al Road
Al Anf part 3, p. 263).
It is obvious from the dialogue that ’Umru
does not like fighting because he does not want to kill ’Ali
while he is defending himself. He wonders, "What for? I do not
want to embrace Islam." But ’Ali says to him, "By God I love to
kill you," and he did kill him.
We would like to conclude these stories by
relating another moving episode which the Muslim Chroniclers
recorded, among them, Isma’il Ibn Kathir in his book, "The
Prophetic Biography" (part 3, p. 596). Ibn Kathir says that
Muhammad’s followers met a man and asked him to become a Muslim.
He asked them, "What is Islam?" They explained that to him. He
said, "What if I refuse it? What would you do to me?" They
answered, "We would kill you." Despite that, he refused to
become a Muslim and they killed the poor man after he went and
bade his wife farewell. She continued to weep over his corpse
for days until she died of grief over her slain beloved who was
killed for no reason.
Dr. ’Afifi Abdul-Fattah
On the cover of his famous book, "The
Spirit of Islamic Religion," which was reprinted more than nine
times, it says the following, "It has been revised by the
committee of Azhar scholars with introductions made by the
greatest Muslim professors and judges of Islamic legal courts."
On page 382 Dr. ’Afifi says:
"Islam has approved war so that the
Word of God becomes supreme. This is war for the cause of
God (Holy War). Muhammad, therefore, sent his ambassadors to
eight kings and princes in the neighborhood of the Arab
Peninsula to call them to embrace Islam. They rejected his
call. Thus, it became incumbent on the Muslims to fight
them."
On page 384, we read the following:
"Islamic law demands that before
Muslims start fighting infidels (unbelievers), they first
deliver the message of Islam to them. It was proven that the
prophet never fought people before he called them to embrace
Islam first. He used to command his generals to do so also."
Dr. ’Afifi (along with the Azhar scholars
who revised his book) boasts that the prophet never fought
anybody before he called them to Islam first! Those people fail
to realize that human rights emphasize that when you call people
to embrace any religion and they refuse to do so, you must leave
them alone! You are not to fight them in order to force them to
accept the new religion as Muhammad and his followers did.
We did not say that Muhammad did not call
them to believe in Islam first. We acknowledge that, but we
blame him because whenever they rejected his invitation, he
fought and killed them Are these the human rights? Don’t you
understand, Dr. ’Afifi? Do Muhammad’s teachings make you so
blind that you fail to see the simplest principles of human
rights? Do you not respect man’s freedom to believe in whatever
he wants? Muhammad had the right to call people to embrace Islam
and to commission Khalid along with his followers to carry out
this task; but he did not have the right to kill them if they
refused to accept Islam.
Dr. ’Afifi says that eight kings and
princes declined to accept Muhammad’s mission; thus it was
incumbent on the Muslims to fight them. We ask him: Why
it was incumbent on them to fight those kings and princes? Is
their refusal to accept Islam a reason for the Muslims to fight
them? "Yes!" This is what all Muslim scholars say, without
exception.
Let the people of the West and of the East
ponder these events which took place in the course of Islamic
history and during the life of Muhammad and after his death.
Beware, nations of the world, for any strong Islamic country
would implement the same policy of war to obey God’s order and
his messenger! !
The Saudi Scholars
In his book, "The Methodology of Islamic
Law", Dr. Muhammad al-Amin says (page 17):
"God had made it clear to us that (we
should) call for acceptance of Islam first, then wage war.
It is not admissible to wage war before extending the
invitation to embrace Islam first, as the Qur’an says.
‘We verily sent our messenger with clear proofs and revealed
to them the scripture and the balance, that mankind may
observe right measure, and he revealed iron, wherein is
mighty power and uses for mankind and that Allah (God) may
know him who helps Him and his messengers—Allah is strong,
Almighty"’ (Surah Iron 57:25).
Thus, God’s words are, "We sent down iron,
which has powerful might", followed His saying, "We have sent
our apostles with signs." This denotes that if the signs and
books fail, then unleash the sword against them, as the Muslim
poet said, "The Book (Qur’an) offers guidance, and he who does
not turn away (from evil) by the guidance of the book, He will
be kept straight by the squadrons."
The reader may be confused and want to
inquire about Muhammad’s policy in spreading his mission. They
may question his orders to his generals and his explicit
attitude towards Abu Sufyan and say, "These attitudes prove to
us that Islam forces people to accept it. The case is not
limited to ignoring people’s freedom and confiscating their
properties only or sentencing the apostate to death, but it also
calls for slaying whoever rejects Islam. What is the opinion of
the scholar about that? Is force used as compulsion in accepting
this religion?"
The Muslim scholars say, "Yes." There is
compulsion used in accepting Islam, but this applies only to
pagans and those who are irreligious. For Christians and Jews,
the orders are to fight them and subject them to the ordinances
of Islam, making them pay a poll-tax. In this case, they are
spared death and are allowed to keep their faith. They are not
forced to embrace Islam because they have three options—become
Muslims, fight, or pay the poll-tax. The irreligious have two
options only: death or Islam. This is what the Muslim scholars
say, and the Qur’an itself teaches the same.
Ibn Hazm and al-Baydawi
In volume 8, part 11, on page 196 Ibn Hazm
remarks decisively,
"The prophet Muhammad did not accept
from the Arab heathens less than Islam or the sword. This is
compulsion of faith. No compulsion in faith (or religion)
applies only to Christians or Jews because they are not to
be forced to embrace the religion. They have the option
either to embrace Islam, the sword, or to pay the poll-tax.
In this case they can keep their own faith. It was truly
said on the authority of the apostle of God that there is no
compulsion in the faith.
"When the sacred months elapse, kill those
who associate other gods with God, wherever you find them"
(Surah 9:5).
The Imam al-Baydawi offers us (page 58 of
his commentary) exactly the same interpretation.
Abu Bakr El Sadiq
In Al Road Al Anf (part 4, p. 240), Ibn
Hisham indicates that Abu Bakr (the daily companion of Muhammad
and among the first who believed in him) used to converse with
Ibn Abu Rafi al-Ta’i and to say to him:
"God—to whom belong the might and
exaltation—has sent Muhammad with this religion for which he
fought until people entered this religion by hook or by
crook."
This phrase, I believe, is
self-explanatory—"by crook" !
The Imam al-Shafi’i
In his famous book, "The Ordinances of
Qur’an" (page 50 of the second part), the Shafi’i says:
"The apostle of God defeated the
people until they entered Islam by hook or by crook."
Again we have this clear declaration—"by
crook". This is what actually happened.
The Qur’an Exposes the Aggressive
Nature of Islam
The Qur’anic verses reveal to us the
aggressive, hostile nature of the Islamic mission and of
Muhammad. The Qur’an includes verses pertaining to fighting
against infidels, as well as other verses related to Holy War
against Christians and Jews.
Pertaining to the Infidels
"But
when the sacred months elapse, then fight and slay the pagans
wherever you find them and seize them, besiege them and lie in
wait for them in every stratagem (of war). But if they repent
and establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity,
then open the way for them for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most
Merciful" (Surah 9:5).
How did Muslim scholars and chroniclers
interpret this verse in order to understand what Muhammad did
after the conquest of Mecca and its occupation?
The Jalalan
In this commentary, which was published by
the Azhar in 1983 (page 153), the authors say decisively,
"The chapter of Repentance was
revealed to raise the level of security which the infidels
enjoyed because Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with
them not to kill them. After that, this verse was given
(9:5) in order to free God and Muhammad from any covenant
with the infidels. It gives them four months in which they
will be protected, but by the end of the four months (the
end of the grace period), the order comes: Kill the infidels
wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them in their
castles and fortresses until they are forced to accept Islam
or be killed."
As you see, this verse was inspired in
order to free Muhammad (and God) from any peaceful and
protective covenant which Muhammad made with the people of
Mecca, as if the covenant were shameful behavior from which
Muhammad (and his God) must free themselves. Nothing remains
after that, except the pledge of war and massacre, as Ibn Hisham
says later.
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya.
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s book was
published in Saudi Arabia (second edition) in 1981. In part 5,
p. 90, this famous scholar tells us the following:
"When the prophet migrated from Mecca
to Medina, God ordered him to fight those who fought him
only. Then when the chapter of Repentance was revealed, God
commanded His prophet to fight anyone who did not become a
Muslim from among the Arabs, whether (that person) fought
him or not. He did not command him to take the poll-tax from
infidels."
This means that Arabs did not have a
choice. They either had to embrace Islam or die by the sword. It
is obvious then that God (according to the above interpretation)
had ordered His prophet to fight anyone from among the Arabs who
refused to become a Muslim whether he fought against Muhammad or
not. This is overt aggression and unjustified attack against
peaceful people.
Ibn Hisham: - Al Sohaily
In his book, "al-Rawd al-Anaf" which is
the most famous book about Muhammad’s life (part 4, p. 194), we
read the following text:
"When Muhammad conquered Mecca and the
Arabs realized that they were not able to wage war against
Muhammad, they accepted the Islamic faith. But some of the
infidels continued to be as they were. (They used to make
pilgrimages also because this practice was in vogue among
the people hundreds of years before Muhammad). Then suddenly
Muhammad sent someone to announce to the Tribe of Quraysh
that no pilgrimage would be allowed for the infidels after
that year (9H); none would enter paradise unless he were a
Muslim. Muhammad was going to give the infidels a respite
for four months, and after that there would not be a
covenant except the covenant of the sword and war (lit:
piercing and the strike of the sword). After this period,
people entered Islam by hook or by crook, and anyone who did
not become a Muslim fled the Arabian Peninsula."
Ibn Hisham already quoted Muhammad’s
famous words:
"No two religions are to exist in
the Arab Peninsula" (pp. 50, 51).
Ibn Kathir,
Al-Baydawi-al-Tabari (The Pillars of Islam)
Isma’il Ibn Kathir reiterates the above
interpretation on page 336 of his commentary. He also asserts
that this verse (9:5) is the verse of the sword which abrogated
any previous covenant between the prophet and the infidels. On
pp. 246 and 247, the Baydawi borrows Ibn Kathir’s explanation
and indicates to us the four months which were Shawal, Dhu
al-Qu’da, Dhu al-Hijja and Muharram. The Baydawi adds that after
the elapse of these four months, the infidels must be taken as
prisoners lest they enter Mecca. In this case, they don’t have
any choice except either to embrace Islam or to be killed. Al
Tabari said the same words and the same explanation on p. 206,
207 of his commentary dar-el-Sheroq.
Dr. Muhammad Sa’id al-Buti
We would like to conclude our discussion
about this verse by referring to the opinion of one of the most
eminent scholars of Azhar and the Islamic world. In his book,
"The Jurisprudence of the Biography", he says,
"The verse (9:5) does not leave any
room in the mind to conjecture about what is called
defensive war. This verse asserts that Holy War which is
demanded in Islamic law, is not defensive war (as the
Western students of Islam would like to tell us) because it
could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and
most honorable of all Holy wars" (pp. 323, 324).
Dr. Sa’id, I wish that Westerners would
actually believe your statement! I wish that Western people
would drop any notion that Holy war is a defensive war! You
really astonish me, though, because you regard the offensive war
designed to spread the faith to be legal as if you had never
heard of an agency in New York called the United Nations or of
human rights. You even say that offensive war is "the apex and
the most honorable Holy War" among all wars!
Pertaining to the People of
the Book
Explicitly and shamelessly, the Qur’an
declares (Chapter of Repentance, 9:29),
"Fight against those who have been
given the scripture but believe not in Allah nor the last
day, and who forbid not that which Allah has forbidden by
His messenger, and who follow not the religion of truth,
until they pay the tribute willingly, being brought into
submission" (p. 182, English copy by Saudi Arabian
scholars).
Muslim scholars have agreed on the
interpretation of this transparent verse by which all the Muslim
warriors were guided in their offensive, violent wars against
peaceful people.
The Baydawi
In his book, "The Lights of Revelation", a
commentary on the Qur’an, he remarks,
"Fight Jews and Christians because
they violated the origin of their faith and they do not
believe in the religion of the truth, namely Islam, which
abrogated all other religions. Fight them until they pay the
poll-tax with submission and humiliation" (page 252).
The Tabari
On page 210, the Tabari declares in his
commentary that this verse is referring in particular to the
people of the Book and has direct relation to the preceding
verse (9:28). He said that the reason for the revelation of this
verse (9:29) was that God had prohibited infidels from coming to
the mosque for pilgrimage any more. They used to come with food
and to trade. Muslims said, "Then, where we can get food?" They
were afraid of poverty; thus God gave this verse so that they
could collect money (the poll-tax)from the people of the Book.
This same interpretation is also found in
the "Biography of the Apostle" by Ibn Hisham (p. 104 in part 4),
and in the Jalalan. The rest of the scholars agree upon this
interpretation. I would like to quote here the text of the two
verses (9:28-29) because they really complement each other. The
Qur’an says:
"O ye who believe! Truly the pagans
are unclean, so let them not approach the sacred Mosque
after this year, and if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah
enrich you (if He wills) out of His bounty for Allah is
All-Knowing, All-Wise ... fight against the people of the
Book ...." (to the end of verse 29).
The Tabari adds:
"The meaning of the Qur’anic
statement: ‘... until they pay the poll-tax with submission
and humiliation’ (literally: to pay by hand and with forced
submission) is that the Muslim will receive the tax imposed
on Christians and Jews while he is sitting and they are
standing. He will take it from their own hands since the
Christian or the Jew should not send the money with a
messenger but come himself and stand to pay it to the Muslim
who will be sitting. The saying, ‘with forced submission’,
also means with humiliation" (page 210).
The Jalalan (Al Suyti and ’Al
Mahally)
On page 156, we find the same words and
interpretation stated by the Tabari. Then he adds:
"The order to fight the people of the
Book is because they do not prohibit what the apostle had
forbidden such as wine."
Then he explains the humiliating
procedure by which Christians have to pay the poll-tax—exactly
as the Tabari described it.
Ibn Hisham Al Sohaily
In his book, "The Biography of the
Apostle" (Al Road Al Anf, part 4, p. 201), Ibn Hisham repeats
the above-mentioned quotation and adds,
"The poll-tax is to be paid by the
Christian or the Jew forcibly and submissively. It is to
spare their lives; that is, they pay it in lieu of being
killed because if they did not pay it, they would be killed
unless they intended to become Muslims, then they would be
exempted from paying it."
The Shafi’i:
Lastly, we would like to refer to the
Shafi’i’s statement in his book, "The Ordinances of the Qur’an"
(part 2, p. 50),
"The apostle of God killed and
captured (many) of the people of the Book until some of them
embraced Islam, and he imposed the poll-tax on some others."
For God’s sake, Muhammad! You killed and
captured Jews and Christians, who believe in one God—the
followers of Moses and Jesus—and forced them either to embrace
Islam or to pay the poll-tax!
In the same book and part, the Shafi’i
summarizes the entire situation, whether in relation to infidels
or to the people of the Book. He says,
"From idolaters and those who
associate other gods with God, the poll-tax is not to be
accepted. Either they believe in Islam or be killed, but the
people of the Book can pay the poll-tax with submission and
humiliation whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs" (pp.
52,53).
The Shafi’i adds in the same source (pp.
62-64) saying,
"When the people of Islam became
strong enough, God revealed the chapter of Repentance and
ordained the fight against the people of the book until they
pay the poll-tax."
If the reader wonders why, I would remind
him of what the Tabari and Ibn Hisham said—Muslims were afraid
of poverty and they wanted to acquire properties and bounties.
Thus the Qur’an explained, "If you fear poverty, soon will Allah
enrich you if He wills, out of His bounty...Fight... the people
of the Book... until they pay the poll-tax."
Isn’t this the same as crimes committed by
bandits and pirates? Yet, this is exactly what Muhammad used to
do. On various occasions, Muhammad himself attacked the caravans
(or he would order his followers to do so) to plunder them.
In short, Islamic law calls for the death
penalty for apostates and forces peaceful infidels
(unbelievers)either to accept Islam or be killed. If they are
the people of the Book, they have a choice either to be killed,
to become Muslims, or to pay the poll-tax in humiliation.
Where are human rights? Where is respect
for the individual’s freedom to choose the faith he wants?
Contemporary Muslim Scholars
Concur on the Principle of Offensive War
In addition to the foregoing quotations, I
would like to add some statements which may have more bearing
for international readers. I will include many other
declarations quoted from publications of the Liberation Party in
Jerusalem as made by another Muslim scholar.
"The Jurisprudence of the
Biography" by al-Buti (7th ed.) published by the Azhar in Egypt
This
book was revised by Al Azhar, so it is accepted by all Muslims
and is well-known all over the Islamic world. It deals with
Muhammad’s biography, interprets it and comments on the most
famous events of his life. The author states (page 324) that the
offensive war is legal. He literally uses these words,
"The concept of Holy War in Islam does
not take into consideration whether (the war is) a defensive
or an offensive war. Its goal is the exaltation of the Word
of God and the construction of Islamic society and the
establishment of God’s Kingdom on Earth regardless of the
means. The means would be offensive warfare. In this case it
is the apex, the most noble Holy War. It is legal to carry
on a Holy War."
The implications are plain enough—there is
no need for comment. Then he adds on p. 242,
"Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing
but a phase of the Islamic mission which the prophet
practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase;
that is, calling all people to embrace Islam so that nothing
less would be acceptable from atheists and those who
associate other deities with God than that they embrace
Islam. Also, nothing would be acceptable from the people of
the Book except conversion to Islam or being subjugated to
Muslim rule. In addition, there is the command to fight
anyone who attempts to stand in its way. Now, after the
domination of Islamic rule is in place, and its mission
complete, it is meaningless (in regard to Holy War) to (talk
about) defensive wars, as some of the researchers do.
Otherwise, what does Muhammad’s statement mean (as it is
related by the Bukhari), ‘They would not invade you, but you
invade them ’?"
It is obvious that defensive warfare was a
temporary phase in Muhammad’s strategy. After that, a second
phase followed which was offensive war, a legal tool for holy
war. In this phase, people were not left to enjoy their status
quo, but were invaded and they suffered the horrors of the war,
though they did not attempt to start a war or to invade the
Muslims. It is as Muhammad said: "They will not invade you, but
you are those who will invade them." Why? Is it an order to
impose Islam on infidels or to kill them? Or (as is the case
with the people of the Book) are they either to accept Islam,
fight a war, or surrender and pay the poll-tax with humiliation?
This is an explicit declaration and Dr.
Buti does not hide the truth. To the contrary, he boasts of it
and asserts that it is wrong to regard Islamic wars as defensive
wars. He insists that this is a false concept which some
researchers have reiterated along with Western nations in order
to halt the Islamic march.
Let the entire world listen to the opinion
of one of the most famous Muslim scholars from the Azhar
University as he demands the resumption of war to conquer the
world. He says (pages 265 and 266),
"The concept by which the mission
directed itself from the beginning of Muhammad’s migration
to Medina to the Hudaybiyya treaty, was simply a defensive
phase of the plan. During this stage, the prophet did not
initiate an attack or start an invasion, but after the
treaty of Hudaybiyya, the prophet intended to enter a new,
essential phase in accordance with Islamic law. This was the
phase of fighting those who heard the message but arrogantly
rejected it. This phase, by the act of Muhammad and his
word, has become a legal decree, according to Muslims in
every age until the day of resurrection!"
I wonder, "Why should Muhammad fight them?
Is it because they rejected his faith that he should fight with
them?" The Azhari scholar answers, "Yes, because they arrogantly
refused to believe in him, so he added that this new stage of
war; that is, the phase of fighting unbelievers. This came after
the completion of the defensive period which followed the treaty
of Hudaybiyya. It has become (according to Muslims) legal in
every age until the day of resurrection."
Dr. Buti continues:
"...This is the concept which
professional experts of thought attempt to conceal from the
eyes of Muslims by claiming that anything that is related to
a holy war in Islamic law is only based on defensive warfare
to repel an attack" (page 266).
Many have thought as much, but it is
obvious from this statement that defensive warfare is an attempt
made by Western thinkers to hide from the eyes of Muslims the
reality of offensive warfare. If we wonder why Western thinkers
do that, Dr. Buti answers this question on the same page 266
saying,
"It is no secret that the reason
behind this deception is the great fear which dominates
foreign countries (East and West alike) that the idea of
Holy War for the cause of God would be revived in the hearts
of Muslims, then certainly, the collapse of European culture
will be accomplished. The mind set of the European man has
matured to embrace Islam as soon as he hears an honest
message presented. How much more will it be accepted if this
message is followed by a Holy War?"
Have European, American and Eastern
people—as well as the governments of the World—read these
obvious words? We have been led to believe that Muhammad and his
followers only waged defensive wars. Yet here they declare that
defensive warfare was a temporary strategy at the
beginning of Islam. Six years after Muhammad’s departure from
Mecca to
Medina, a new phase has begun; namely,
offensive warfare. Muslims are concerned that the popular
notion that Islamic wars were nothing more than defensive wars
is a deception invented by the people of the West to divert
Muslims away from allowing the dream of Holy War to be revived
in their hearts. The West is afraid that the Islamic dream would
set off a holy, offensive war in order to establish God’s state
on Earth (an Islamic government) and to make God’s word supreme.
Then Western civilization would collapse.
There is no need to comment further on
these statements, but I would like to tell Dr. Buti something:
If the mind set of the European man is potentially ready to
embrace Islam, it is because he is not exposed to the reality of
Islam or who Muhammad really was. Only such books as ours will
remove the Islamic deceptive veils. If real Islam is truly
exposed, it will be eradicated not only in Europe,
America, Asia and Africa, but also in Arab countries as well.
People will re-examine the reality of this religion and the
prophethood of this Arabic man called Muhammad.
We tell you, Dr. Buti, that powerful
foreign countries are not afraid of Arab countries and Islamic
states which do not have modern technology because one strong
foreign country can annihilate all these countries. If the state
of Israel alone is able to exhaust all the Arab countries, how
much more can other powerful foreign countries do so? If foreign
countries claim that Islamic wars were defensive wars, that is
because they have been deluded and have believed the
deception, but praise be to God for people like you who expose
the ugly truth to them.
You have demonstrated to them that holy
war in Islam is a continuing ideal which will last to the
day of resurrection. It is a plan in which it is incumbent on
all Muslims to fight (in the cause of God) those who reject
Islam. This concept started in the sixth year of the Hegira and
continues to the present.
As Dr. Buti endeavors to justify the
principle of offensive warfare, he remarks that offensive war is
the most noble of all wars and the verses (chapter 9:29 and 9:5)
do not leave any room in the imagination for defensive warfare.
He addresses his readers,
"You may wonder now: Where is the
wisdom of forcing infidels and their associates to embrace
Islam? How could the mind set of the twentieth century
understand such matters? The answer is: We wonder where the
wisdom is when the state forces an individual to be
subjugated to its system and philosophy despite the freedom
he possesses? How can it be reasonable for the state to have
the right to subjugate its citizens to the laws, principles,
and ordinances it enacts, while the creator of all does not
have the right to subjugate them to His authority and to
convert them from every creed or faith to His religion?"
(pages 266 and 267).
I would like to ask you, Dr. Sa’id El
Buti, you who are a contemporary scholar at the Azhar
University: How can people of the twentieth century understand
and accept your logic of imposing a certain religion on a person
with the death penalty as the only alternative? Would it not be
more reasonable for Muslims to understand and accept the concept
of human rights and the freedom to embrace the creed a person
wishes to believe, in accordance with his conviction? We take
into consideration your circumstances and we understand that you
would be likely to defend Islam and the Qur’an. You would be
likely to defend Muhammad’s behavior, sayings and all that his
companions and successors did, but let me tell you that
twentieth century thinking rejects your attitude.
On the other hand, who told you that the
state and its rulers have the right to impose regulations and
systems on their citizens as they wish? Don’t you know that the
people of modern countries in Europe and America vote on
the constitution they feel is appropriate for them? They even
elect their rulers as well as the people’s assemblies, such
as parliament. The people in these democratic countries have the
authority to remove the leaders of the state if they fail to act
in accordance with their constitutions which were established by
free elections and public vote.
Maybe you are comparing yourself to the
governments of underdeveloped countries (like most of the Arab
and Islamic countries) which are characterized by the rule of
one individual, tyranny, terrorism and the neglect of human
rights. Woe to the one who opposes the ruler or dares to change
his Islamic religion! Some Islamic countries subject him to
Islamic law, and carry out the orders of Muhammad and his
successors by sentencing him to death immediately. Other
countries are content to put him in jail and torment him for a
while.
Dr. Sa’id, what makes you think that God’s
character is similar to the character of the rulers of these
tyrannical states? We pray that the time will come when there is
freedom for evangelism and the preaching of the Gospel in the
Arab world for the benefit of the Arab people—first and last. We
also pray that the rulers of the Arab countries will become like
Gorbachev, the former ruler of Russia, who guaranteed religious
freedom and opened wide the door of human rights and individual
freedom.
God (the only eternal, true God) is not
the one who exists in your mind or the one about whom Muhammad
preached, but He is the God of love and freedom. He is the God
of Christian revelation. The true God is not a God who demands
that a poll-tax be paid to Muhammad, or a God of capturing women
and children, or of slaughtering the men of peaceful towns if
they do not become Muslims Yours is an imaginary God who does
not exist. The true God says,
"Let the one who thirsts, come. And
the one who desires, let him take the water of life freely"
(Rev. 22: 17).
He also says,
"Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the
waters; And you who have no money, "Come, buy and eat ...
let your soul delight itself in abundance" (Isa. 55:1-2).
Arab Scholars in Jerusalem
"The Book of the Islamic State" by Taqiy
al-Din al-Nabahan was published in 1953. It encapsulates the
entire issue in simple, plain style and in explicitly few words.
It will suffice to quote four self-explanatory paragraphs which
need no comment because they are obvious.
On pages 112, 113, and 117, Taqiy al-Din
says,
"The foreign policy of Islamic states
must be to carry the Islamic mission to the world by way of
holy war. This process has been established through the
course of the ages from the time the apostle settled down
until the end of the last Islamic state which was ruled by
Islamic law. This process has never been changed at all. The
apostle Muhammad, from the time he founded the state in the
city Yathrib, prepared an army and began holy war to remove
the physical barriers which hinder the spread of Islam.
"He subdued the tribe of Quraysh as a
body, along with other similar groups until Islam prevailed
all over the Arabian peninsula. Then the Islamic state
started to knock at the doors of other states to spread
Islam. Whenever it found that the nature of the existing
system in these states was a barrier which prevented the
spread of the mission, they saw it as inevitable that the
system be removed. So holy war continued as a means of
spreading Islam. Thus by holy war, countries and regions
were conquered. By holy war, kingdoms and states were
removed and Islam ruled the nations and peoples.
"The glorious Qur’an has revealed to
Muslims the reasons for fighting and the ordinance of holy
war and it declares that it is to carry the message of Islam
to the entire world. There are several verses which command
the Muslims to fight for the cause of Islam. Therefore,
carrying the Islamic mission is the basis on which the
Islamic state was established, the Islamic army was founded,
and holy war was ordained. All the conquests were achieved
accordingly. Fulfilling the Islamic mission will restore the
Islamic state to the Muslims."
Then he adds on pages 113, 114, and 115,
"If holy war is the established,
unchangeable means of spreading Islam, then political
activities become a necessity before initiating the fight.
If we besiege the infidels, we would call them to embrace
Islam first. If they accept Islam, they become part of the
Islamic community, but if they reject Islam, they have to
pay the poll-tax. If they pay it, they spare their blood and
properties, but if they refuse to pay the poll-tax, then
fighting them becomes lawful."
Readers, please note that these same words
and principles are confirmed by all the Muslim scholars
who are well acquainted with the saying and deeds of Muhammad
and his successors.
On pages 115 and 116 Taqiy al-Din
indicates again this historical statement,
"The Islamic system is a universal
system, thus it was natural that it would spread, and
natural that countries would be conquered. Here the apostle
is receiving from Muslims the pledge of ’aqaba the Second,
making a pact with him to fight all people. Those Muslims
were the core of the army of the Islamic state whose
military task was to carry the Islamic mission. The apostle
of God had designed the plan of conquest before his death,
then after him, his successors undertook the responsibility
of implementing this plan when they started conquering the
countries. Later, the Islamic conquests followed
successively on this basis. People’s resistance or rejection
does not matter because the Islamic system is for all people
in all countries."
Let the reader ponder these words and
judge for himself. "People’s resistance or rejection does not
matter because Islam is for all people"; namely, by force,
conquest, and war.
But I would like to state here that
Christianity is also a universal system, and it is for all
people. Christ said,
"Go into all the world and preach the
gospel to every creature..." (Mark 16:15).
Anyone who believes will be saved and
whoever does not believe, God will judge. Christ did not say,
"Go into the world and preach. Whoever believes becomes one of
us, and whoever does not believe should pay the poll-tax to the
Christian army or be put to death." He did not say that! This is
a crucial difference, my dear reader, between Christ and
Muhammad, between Christianity and Islam.
The Bloody History of Islam
Having surveyed the incidents which took
place during the life of Muhammad, it is appropriate to mention
the events which occurred after his death and how the Caliphs
who succeeded him carried out the same Muhammadic principle and
the Qur’anic instructions The history of Islam talks to us with
two bloodied hands—first is the blood of peaceful people who
safely inhabited the land until they were invaded by the Muslim
armies which marched from the Arab Peninsula after the death of
Muhammad. In the name of spreading the religion, they killed
millions of people, and in the name of exalting the word of God,
they plundered properties and divided the "booty" of women and
children among themselves, the same as Muhammad did in the
course of his campaigns. These Arab Islamic armies obeyed
Muhammad’s orders and the Qur’anic commands. They believed that
spreading Islam and taking the material abundance came from God.
The Qur’an explicitly says,
"Allah promises you much booty (spoils
of war) that you will capture" (Chapter 48:20).
Muslim scholars do not negate these
historically confirmed facts, but rather they brag about them,
and their books (both old and modern) are filled with the
details of these events. They mention them with pride, and they
are glad to explain and demonstrate how the Arab Islamic armies
attacked all the Persian lands and part of the Byzantine
territories and occupied them. They could tell you how these
armies took over Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey,
and, of course, Libya and all of Africa until the Muslim army
reached the borders of China and the regions of Iran. Even Spain
had fallen into their hands for hundreds of years. They
proceeded then toward France, but they were stopped in the
battle of Tours at the hands of Charles Martel. These wars were
offensive wars of the first degree. Islam dominated these
countries. Nowadays, all Muslim countries belong to the
under-developed third world.
Before we let the Muslim chroniclers
narrate to us what happened, it is fit here to clarify a very
significant issue about which many people inquire.
The Cross Denounces the
Crusades
These were bitter wars led by the princes
of Europe for a period of time without any justification except
ruthlessness of the heart and faithlessness of those leaders,
who (despite their claims that they were attempting to deliver
the Christians in the Islamic East from the persecution of the
Muslims) were not true believers in Christ or in His teachings.
Where in the Gospel do we find any call for war? In this study,
we compare Christ with Muhammad, the Gospel with the Qur’an, the
sublime teaching of Christianity with the clear teachings of
Islam.
- Did Christ lead any war to spread the
faith, to divide the booty and to capture women to enslave
them for himself and for his followers?
- Did Christ order His followers to do
so?
- Did he order Peter to sheath his
sword when he unsheathed it and struck the servant of the
Jewish high priest when Christ’s enemies hastened to arrest
him?
- Did Christ’s successors and disciples
wage wars and march into battle to take poll-taxes and to
spread Christianity?
These are the conclusive questions which
reveal the difference between Christ and Muhammad, between
Christianity and Islam. If some Christians came after hundreds
of years had elapsed and committed such detestable things,
Christ and Christianity would certainly denounce such deeds. On
the other hand, the Islamic wars were waged by Muhammad himself,
then by his relatives and companions who lived with him day
after day and to whom he promised paradise.
The other important thing is that they
were executing the unequivocal teachings of both Muhammad and
the Qur’an which we mentioned previously in this chapter. We
have many books which all talk thoroughly and in detail about
the offensive wars. The most famous of these books is "The
Chronicles of Al-Tabari, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Kathir" and "The
History of the Caliphs" by the Suyuti. The entire Islamic world
relies on these books.
Among the contemporary scholars who rely
on these sources and quote from them is Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi,
professor of civilization at the Azhar University. His respected
book, "al-Khulafa’ al-Rashidun" The Rightly Guided Caliphs", or
successors) from which we quoted when we discussed the wars of
apostasy, examines these things. We have selected a few
quotations from these sources and references because they almost
all repeat each other. These events are well-known and confirmed
by all Muslims. They are taught in the public schools in all the
Islamic countries, especially in the Arab world.
"The Rightly Guided Caliphs"
by Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi
Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi discusses the Islamic
wars which were initiated by the four caliphs who succeeded
Muhammad and who, at the same time, are his favored relatives.
These caliphs are: Abu Bakr, ’Umar, ’Uthman and ’Ali. Muhammad
married ’Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr, and Hafesa, daughter of
’Umar. ’Uthman married Ruqayya, the daughter of Muhammad, then
after her death, he married her sister Um Kalthum. ’Ali was
married to Muhammad’s youngest daughter, Fatima al-Zahra.
On pages 35-38, Dr. Abu Zayd remarks,
"Muhammad had prepared an army to
invade the borders of Syria. When Muhammad died Abu Bakr
sent an army headed by Usama Ibn Zayd and ’Umar Ibn
al-Khattab. The army marched towards southern Palestine and
invaded some parts of the land, frightened the people and
captured some booty."
At the beginning of page 70, Dr. Abu Zayd
talks about the Islamic conquests and indicates that at the
inception of the year 12 of Hajira, Abu Bakr ordered Khalid Ibn
al-Walid to invade Persian lands and to seize the ports near
Iraq. Khalid marched with the army, but before he started the
war, he sent his famous message to Hermez, one of the Iraqi
generals, "Embrace Islam, or pay the poll-tax, or fight." The
Hermez declined to accept any of these terms but war. The
Persians were defeated in this battle and Khalid seized the
booty and sent Abu Bakr one-fifth of the spoils of war, exactly
as they were accustomed to send to Muhammad. One-fifth of the
booty belonged to God and to Muhammad.
Abu Bakr presented Khalid with the
Hermez’s tiara which was inlaid with gems. Dr. Abu Zayd says the
value of the gems amounted to 100,000 dirham (p. 73). After
that, the successful, savage invasions continued against other
countries which could not repel the forces of Islam. This Azhar
scholar tells us that in the battle of Alees which took place on
the border of Iraq, Khalid killed 70,000 people! He was so
brutal in his attack that the nearby river was mixed with their
blood (p. 75).
On p. 77, Dr. Abu Zayd mentions another
country which surrendered to Khalid. Khalid demanded that they
pay 190,000 dirhams. When he attacked Ayn al-Tamr in Iraq, its
people took shelter in one of the fortresses. Khalid laid siege
to the fortress and forced them to come out. He killed all of
them mercilessly. They had done nothing against him or against
the Muslims except that they refused to embrace Islam and to
recognize Muhammad as an apostle of God. The Muslims seized all
that they found in the fortress along with forty young men who
were studying the Gospel. Khalid captured them and divided them
among the Muslims (refer to p. 81).
It is well-known that Khalid Ibn al-Walid
was a very brutal, vicious man. His relentlessness made ’Umar
Ibn al-Khattab ask Abu Bakr to kill him or at least to depose
him because he killed another Muslim in order to marry his wife!
Abu Bakr did not listen, but when ’Umar became the second
caliph, he deposed him immediately This was ’Umar’s opinion
about Khalid. Yet, to Muhammad, the prophet of Muslims, Khalid
was one of the best among his relatives and warriors.
On page 134, Abu Zayd relates that when
Khalid besieged another town called Qinnasrin which belonged to
the Byzantine Empire, its people were so afraid that they hid
themselves from him. He sent them a message in which he said:
"Even if you hide in the cloud, God will lift us up to you or He
will lower you down to us." They asked for a peace treaty, but
he refused and killed them all. Then he eradicated the town.
These are the words of Dr. Abu Zayd which we faithfully relay to
you.
Dr. Abu Zayd continues to list the names
of the towns and the regions which the Islamic army invaded
after the fall of ’Ain al-Tamr. He says:
"By the end of the year 12, Hajira Abu
Bakr became interested in Syria (Al Sham). He issued orders
to four of his great generals and designated for each one of
them a country which he was given to invade. He assigned
Damascus to Yazid, Jordan to Sharhabil, Homs to Abu ’Ubayda
and Palestine to ’Umru Ibn al-’As.
We wonder: Are these wars defensive wars
or are they definitely offensive wars and unjustified military
invasions? Abu Bakr’s era ends during the famous battle of
Yarmick in which tens of thousands were slain for no reason
except to impose religion by force, capturing women and
plundering the properties. Muslims claim that Abu Bakr died from
eating poisoned food a few months before.
When ’Umar was elected to the Caliphate,
he deposed Khalid Ibn al-Walid and replaced him immediately with
Abu ’Ubayda.
The Caliphate (ruling period)
of ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab
The Invasion of Persia
’Umar Ibn al-Khattab sent Sa’d Ibn Abi
Waqqas to invade Persia. He camped in al-Qaddisia near the river
Euphrates. Dr. Abu Zayd narrates for us a very important
incident (pages 117-118) which we would like to examine. The
author says:
"Sa’d sent some of his followers
(among them the Mu’man Ibn Maqrin to Yazdagird, one of the
Persian generals) who asked him, ‘What enticed you and
brought you to invade us?’ (Ibn Maqrin) said to him, ‘Choose
for yourself either Islam or the poll-tax or the sword.’ The
Persian general became very angry and said to him, ‘Had it
not been (the custom that messengers should not be killed),
I would have killed you. Go; you have nothing to do with
me."’
Ibn Khaldun confirms this incident in the
end of the second volume of his famous history book (pages
94-96). He says,
"Rustan, the Persian general, said to
one of Sa’d’s messengers, ‘You were poor and we used to
provide you with plenty of food. Why do you invade us now?"’
It was obvious that the Persians had never
thought to invade the Arabs, but they used to send them plenty
of food because of the poverty of the Arab peninsula.
Never-the-less, the Arabs seized the opportunity to invade
Persia after they realized that the Persians had been weakened
by its wars with the Byzantine Empire and their own internal
problems. Thus, they repaid compassion with wickedness and
goodness with evil. The question which the Persian general Sa’d
asked was a logical one, "Why do you attack us? Did we mistreat
you?" The answer was also very clear, "You have three options!"
Dr. Abu Zayd says on in p. 123:
"Sa’d seized (after the battle of
Qadisiyya) all that was in the treasury of Khusro of money
and treasure. It was so plentiful that each Arab horseman
received 12,000 dirham."
The Invasion of Damascus
On pages 131 and 132 of the same book,
"The Rightly Guided Caliphs," the author indicates,
"Abu ’Ubayda marched towards Damascus
and besieged it for seventy nights. He cut off all supplies
while its inhabitants were pleading for help and assistance.
Then Khalid attacked the city and massacred thousands of
people. (They were forced) to ask for a peace treaty. Abu
’Ubayda turned over the rule of Damascus to Yazid and
ordered him to invade the neighboring (cities). He attacked
Sidon, Beirut, and others."
The Attack on Jerusalem
On pages 136 and 137, we read about the
attack of ’Umru Ibn al-’as on Jerusalem. He besieged it for four
months. Then its Christian inhabitants agreed to pay the
poll-tax and to surrender to ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the caliph.
’Umar made the trip to Jerusalem and laid the foundation of the
mosque. With that, the conquest of Syria was accomplished, but
as the pestilence (plague) raged, many of the high-ranking
generals of the Islamic army died, among them Abu Ubayda, Yazid
and Sharahbil.
The Invasion of Wealthy Egypt
On pages 141 and 142, the author narrates
how the invasion and occupation of Egypt were accomplished.
Among the justifications which ’Umru Ibn al-’As presented to
’Umar which convinced him to allow ’Umru to attack Egypt were
the following:
"Egypt’s abundance and yields are
plentiful. The conquest of Egypt would gain for the Muslims
a foothold in Syria and make it easier for them to invade
Africa to spread Islam."
It is important to mark ’Umru’s statement
that "Egypt’s abundance and yields are plentiful." Eventually
Egypt and Africa were both conquered.
On pages 145 and 146, the professor of
civilization at the Azhar relates how ’Umru besieged the
Fortress of Babylon (south of ancient Egypt) for a full month,
and that he said to the messengers of the Muqawqis, the governor
of Egypt,
"There is nothing between us and you
except three things:
(1) Embrace Islam, become our brethren
and you will have what we have and you will be subjected to
what we are subjected (in this case they would pay alms to
the treasury of the state).
(2) If you refuse that, you are
obligated to pay tribute with humiliation.
(3) War.
"The Muqawqis attempted to offer them
something different, but they rejected it. At last, after a
fight, he accepted the second condition, namely to pay
tribute and to be subjugated to Islamic rule. The Muslims
entered Egypt. "
On page 147 and 148 Abu Zayd describes
the conquest of Alexandria and denies that the Muslims burned
the famous library of Alexandria. Yet he admits that many
chroniclers have mentioned that ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab ordered
’Umru to burn it entirely.
After the conquest and the occupation of
Egypt, the author says (page 151) that ’Umru wanted to secure
this conquest from the west by conquering Tripoli of Libya, and
from the south by seizing Ethiopia. Thus at the close of the
year 21 H. as Ibn Khaldun and Yaqut al-Kindi remarked (that is
in the first half of the year 643 A.D. as Ibn al Athir and other
chroniclers said), "’Umru marched on with his horsemen towards
Tripoli."
On page 153 he adds:
"’Umru besieged Tripoli for a month.
It was a well-fortified city. At last a group of Muslims
infiltrated the city and fought some of the Byzantines who
soon fled. ’Umar entered the city and captured all that was
in it, then he assailed the city of Sabra without warning
and conquered it by force. He seized all that could be
seized from it. Then he sent his army to Ethiopia, but he
failed to enter it and suffered great losses. The skirmishes
continued until a peace treaty was signed during the time of
’Uthman Ibn ’Affan."
Are these wars considered defensive? What
is an offensive war then?
During the Caliphate of ’
Uthman Ibn ’Affan
On pages 167 and 168, the book tells us:
"’Uthman ordered ’Abdalla Ibn Abi
al-Sarh to invade Africa, then he sent Abdalla Ibn
al-Zubayr. They slaughtered thousands of the people among
them their king, Jayan, and they captured booty."
These are the words of Dr. Abu Zayd in
his famous book, "The Rightly Guided Caliphs". We have quoted
him word for word. Let the reader ponder these words and judge
for himself. What is the crime of these people, whether in
Africa or Syria or Egypt or in other countries? Muslims say—That
was for the exaltation of God’s word. God the compassionate, the
Merciful!
The Wars to spread Islam
On pages 66 and 67 Dr. Abu Zayd confesses
clearly,
"The thing which compelled Abu Bakr to
invade Persia and the Byzantine Empire was not to seize
their abundance, but rather to spread Islam. This claim
is based on evidence that the generals of the Islamic armies
used to call the countries to embrace Islam before they
started fighting them. Khalid Ibn al-Walid sent a message to
the princes of Persia saying:
"After all, accept Islam and you will
be safe, or pay the tribute; otherwise I will come to you
with a people who desire death as you desire drinking wine."
Yes and no, Dr. Abu Zayd! Yes, we accept
your confession that the war was to spread Islam. We agree that
spreading Islam was an essential incentive for war. We are
content with your unequivocal confession in regard to
this matter. We have written these pages in order to denote
these facts and nothing more—to prove that Islam was spread by
sword and that the Islamic wars were offensive wars. Your
confirmation and faithful narration of history in "The Rightly
Guided Caliphs" have helped us to prove this fact. Thank you.
Yet, we disagree with you when you claim
that material abundance was not another reason for these wars.
We will not allow you to conceal this obvious fact because you
yourself have unintentionally alluded to it when you listed the
reasons for the invasion of Egypt—among them were "the abundance
of Egypt and its yields". More than that, ponder what the Qur’an
says in Chapter 48 :20:
"Allah (God) promises you much booty
that you will capture" (Qur’an).
Or let us listen to Muhammad’s explicit
statement in which he (after exhorting his warriors to fight
bravely) promised the plunder of the country. Did you forget,
Dr. Abu Zayd, what Muhammad said? Let me remind you. Muhammad
said,
"You see, God will soon make you inherit
their land, their treasures and make you sleep with their women"
(Lit: make their women’s beds for you).
These plain, disgraceful words are
recorded by Ibn Hisham on page 182 Vol. II, of his famous book,
"Al Rod Al Anf", which all the researchers regard as a reliable
reference. Thus, when Muslims invaded a certain land incited by
the desire to possess the land, treasures, and women, they were
actually fulfilling God’s promise as it was stated in the Qur’an
and in Muhammad’s pledge.
"The Beginning and the End,"
by Ibn Kathir (vol. 7)
We would like to quote a few incidents
from this book by Ibn Kathir who is one of the ancient Muslim
scholars and chroniclers and a reliable source for all students
of Islamic history. On page 2, we read the following,
"At the inception of the year 13 of
the Hajira, Abu Bakr was determined to draft soldiers to
send them to Syria in compliance with the words of the
Qur’an: Fight... those who were given the Scripture (Chapter
9:9); and also follow the example of the apostle of God who
gathered the Muslims together to invade Syria before his
death."
He also adds on page 9:
"When Abu Bakr sent Khalid to Iraq,
Abu Hurayra, who was one of Muhammad’s companions, he used
to exhort Muslims to fight by telling them: ‘Hasten to the
Houris’ (fair, black-eyed women)."
Those Houris are the nymphs of paradise
who are particularly designated for the enjoyment of Muslims.
"‘The Blood of the Byzantine is more
delicious’, Khalid said!"
On page 10, Ibn Khathir tells us that when
the Byzantine leaders rejected Islam or paying tribute, Khalid
told them,
"We are people who drink blood. We
were told that there is no blood that is more delicious than
the blood of the Byzantines."
Such words well suit people like Khalid,
Muhammad’s beloved friend and relative.
On page 13 we read the following,
"Gregorius, one of the great princes
of the Byzantines, said to Khalid: ‘What do you call us
for?’ Khalid answered him: ‘That you testify that there is
no God but the only God and that Muhammad is His messenger
and apostle, and to acknowledge all that Muhammad received
from God (namely pilgrimage, fasting of Ramadan, etc.).’
Gregorius said to him: ‘And if these are not accepted?’
Khalid responded, ‘Then pay the tribute.’ Gregorius said to
him: ‘If we do not give the tribute?’ Khalid said: ‘Then
war!"’
Ibn Kathir acknowledges (on page 21) that
when the Muslims conquered Damascus, they seized St. John’s
church and converted it into the largest mosque in Damascus
today (The Umayyad Mosque). On page 55, we read also about the
invasion of Jerusalem. On page 123, he states,
"Umar Ibn al-Khattab wrote to
Abdil-Rahman Ibn Rabi’a ordering him to invade the Turks
(Turkey today)."
The Second Invasion of Africa
In page 165 Ibn Kathir records for us
that:
"The second invasion of Africa was
accomplished because its people broke their pledge. That was
in year 33 of the Hajira (The Moslem Calendar)."
Of course, the people of Africa broke the
pledge because that pledge was imposed on them by force in lieu
of death. Yet Muslims killed thousands of them. Ibn Kathir
already mentioned in page 151 that,
"’Uthman Ibn ’Affan ordered ’Abdalla
Ibn Sa’d to invade Africa. [He told him] ‘If you conquer it
take 1/25 of its booty.’ ’Abdalla Ibn Sa’d marched towards
it at the head of an army of 20,000 soldiers. He conquered
it and killed multitudes of people from among its
inhabitants until the remnant were converted to Islam and
became subject to the Arabs. ’Abdalla took his portion of
the booty as ’Uthman told him, then he divided the rest."
How unfortunate were the African people!
They were invaded by the Arabs who killed thousands of them,
divided the booty, and forced the remnant to embrace Islam. When
they broke the pact, the Muslims attacked them again. But are
the black African people the only unfortunate people? Or are
all the people of Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt,
Libya, all the Arab tribes, Spain, even the people of China and
India, Cyprus and the Kurds, all the unfortunate peoples? All of
these are unfortunate nations who became the victims of Islamic
Law which detests human rights and persistently ignores their
freedom.
The Invasion of Cyprus and the
Kurds
Ibn Kathir tells us that in the year 28 of
the Hajira, the conquest of Cyprus was accomplished after
’Abdulla Ibn al-Zubayr slaughtered a multitude of people—as
usual. Ibn Khaldun also tells the story of the Kurds. In page
124 of Vol. II, he says,
"Muslims met a number of Kurds. They
called them to embrace Islam or pay the tribute. When they
refused to do so they killed them and captured their women
and children, then divided the booty."
As we see, Ibn Khaldun along with Ibn
Kathir, al-Tabari and other chroniclers, ancient and
contemporary such as Dr. Abu Zayd, recorded all the Islamic
historical events in detail. Moreover, on every occasion Arab
newspapers allude boastfully to these memorial episodes of
Islamic history and shed light on these savage, wild offensive
wars. For instance, we read in the prestigious Ahram newspaper
which is published in Egypt, the following,
"During the era of the Caliph ’Umar
Ibn ’Abdul-’Aziz, Ibn Qutayba in the year 88H, he invaded
some of the neighboring countries of Iran such as Bukhara,
and Samarq and marched close to the Chinese border"
(refer to the Ahram, Mary 26, 1986, p. 13).
In his book, "The Beginning and the End"
(part 9), Ibn Kathir narrates in detail the history of this
belligerent general, Ibn Qutayba. He records the story of his
campaigns and refers to his biography.
We would like to conclude this chapter
with a brief summary which Taqiy al-Din al-Nabahani presents in
his book, "The Islamic State" (pp. 121 and 122). He summarizes
the history of Islamic offensive wars against the neighboring
peaceful countries by saying,
"Muhammad had begun to send troops and
initiate campaigns against the Syrian borders such as the
campaign of Mu’ta and Tabuk. Then the rightly guided caliphs
ruled after him and the conquest continued. (The Arabs)
conquered Iraq, Persia, and Syria whose faith was
Christianity and which were inhabited by the Syrians,
Armenians, some Jews and some Byzantines. Then Egypt and
North Africa were conquered. When the Umayyad took over
after the rightly guided caliphs, they conquered the Sind,
Khawarizm, and Samarqand. They annexed them to the lands of
the Islamic state."
According to all Muslim chroniclers, it is
well documented that Armenia and Morocco were conquered during
the era of ’Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan. When his son, al-Walid,
assumed the throne, he invaded India and Andalusia.
Also, Dr. ’Afifi Abdul-Fattah, the Muslim
scholar, encapsulates the whole principle in a few explicit,
straightforward words, as he says (page 382 of his famous book
"The Spirit of the Islamic Religion"),
"Islam has acknowledged war in order
to exalt the word of God. This is a fight for God’s cause."
He also adds in p. 390,
"Before the Islamic state declares war
against another state, it should give (the other state) the
choice between Islam, tribute or war."
We need not say anything more than that.
Maybe this is what Muslims mean when they say, "We believe in
human freedom and man’s right to choose according to his own
will! We present him with three options, and he has the right to
choose as he wishes — either to become a Muslim and pay alms to
the Caliph of the Muslims, or pay the tribute and submit to
Islamic rule, or we kill him."
Let the reader ponder the Muslim
contradiction that a man has the right to choose whatever
he wants within the Islamic context of individual freedom.
Conclusion
These are the Islamic offensive wars, my
dear reader. We have already surveyed the Qur’anic verses which
were expounded by both the great ancient and the contemporary
Muslim scholars. We also alluded to the sayings of Muhammad, his
own deeds and his orders to his companions, relatives and
successors. We witnessed the bloody events of Islamic history
narrating for us what Muslims did after the death of Muhammad
and how they carried out his orders and the commandments of the
Qur’an—how they fought with the People of the Book, the Jew and
the Christian, until they paid tribute with humiliation and
defeat. We have witnessed how they plundered the lands, killed
the unfortunate, and captured women and children for no reason.
Moreover, we have already discussed all
the matters pertaining to the death penalty of an apostate who
dares to relinquish the Islamic faith and to embrace another
religion, or to become an atheist. We also referred to an
abundance of evidences and interpretations of Muslim scholars
along with the deeds and sayings of Muhammad in this respect. He
himself gave orders to kill anyone who is an apostate from Islam
such as Umm Mirwan as the Azhar and all the Chroniclers denoted,
and all those apostates who fled to Mecca.
Regarding offensive wars or imposing the
Islamic religion on people by war, Muhammad said: "I was
commanded to fight people until they say there is no God but the
only God, and Muhammad is the apostle of God, and they perform
all the Islamic ordinances and rituals."
We also examined Muhammad’s attitude
towards the apostate. He made it clear that the apostate must be
sentenced to death. He said about those who relinquish Islam:
"Whoever changes his faith...kill him!"
Muhammad indicated that is it unlawful to
shed the blood of a Muslim except in three cases: Unbelief after
belief, adultery after integrity (or being married) and killing
a soul without any right. The first case refers to the death
penalty of the apostate and the oppression of his freedom and
right to embrace any religion other than Islam Those are the
clear claims of the Islamic religion as well as of Muhammad, the
prophet of Islam, who always uttered at the beginning of every
prayer or sermon, the following phrase,
"In the name of Allah—the
Compassionate, the Merciful!"
We talked about individual freedom and
human rights! This is the prophet of freedom, mercy, tolerance
and human dignity!
Has the veil been removed?
Is the deception over?
Judge for yourself.
|