Understanding Quran 9:29 In Light Of The Earliest Historical Sources Of Islam

Donate To Discover The Truth

Kaleef K. Karim

Content:

1. Introduction
2. Background Of Quran 9:29
3. Rebuttal
4. Conclusion

1. Introduction

Glen Roberts, who runs the site “The Religion Of Peace” has written a further article on the Quranic verse, 9:29. Glen devoted an article to our piece on 9:29 not long ago, which can be seen here: Answering Jihad: ‘Fight Against Those Who Do Not Believe’Quran 9:29. Then we wrote an article back in response to his claims, which can be seen here: Surah 9:29Tabuk | Response To ‘Religion Of Peace’”. He has returned with another piece, this time trying to respond to the evidences we presented. Most of the claims he made are either misrepresentations of what we wrote or at times he deliberately misleads his readers. Much of the article he has written is his own commentary, rather than presenting historical scholars who are have the expertise on the subject. [1]

Before I move to the rebuttal part I need to inform Glen Roberts that the Byzantine Empire does not have a flowery history the way you’re trying to portray in your articles. Since you have devoted two articles on this subject, I need to remind you that the Byzantine Empire has a long history of massacres and pillaging of other countries in the region. The Byzantine’s did indeed attempt to invade and attack Muslims in Madinah and elsewhere, as we showed in the previous articles, and I will show further evidence for this again in this rebuttal. Glen, you may need to remember that this is the same Byzantine empire which invaded, pillaged, massacred and burned many Persians alive. The Byzantine army pillaging, burning and murdering Persians is mentioned in many non-Muslim early sources:

“Heraclius attacked the Persians, captured the city of Khusrau and took a great many prisoners. … Then Heraclius gave permission for their camp to be plundered. Learning of the death of Rozbihan and his men, Khusrau fled from Ctesiphon (Mahuza and Mada’in). Heraclius arrived and entered it, took possession of the royal treasuries and carried off all that was in it. Then he burned it, laid waste the surrounding villages and enslaved its people.” (Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam [Translated with an introduction and notes by Robert G. Hoyland published by Liverpool University Press (2011)], page 75)

Heraclius himself ordered Jews to be forcefully converted to Christianity:

“Forced conversion of Jews: MSyr: At this time King Heraclius ordered that all the Jews who were found in the lands of the Roman Empire should be baptised and become Christians. For this reason the Jews fled Roman territory. They came first to Edessa; expelled violently once again from this place, they fled into Persia. A great number of them received baptism and became Christians.” (Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, [Translated with an introduction and notes by Robert G. Hoyland, published by Liverpool University Press (2011)], Page 95)

Forceful conversion to Christianity continued against minorities in many regions under the control of the Byzantine’s throughout history:

“Theophanes: The king forced the Jews and the Montanists to accept baptism. The Jews for their part were baptised against their will and then washed off their baptism. They partook of Holy Communion on a full stomach and so defiled the faith. As for the Montanists, they made divination among themselves and, after determining a certain day, entered the houses appointed for their false worship and burned themselves. Agapius: Leo, king of the Romans, began to convert the peoples in his realm of a different religion to him and opposed to Christianity. He made Christian all the Jews and Harranians and they called them new Christians.” (Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, [Translated with an introduction and notes by Robert G. Hoyland, published by Liverpool University Press (2011)], page 221)

The fact that the Byzantine’s attacked and murdered Persians, what is so hard for them to do the same to the Muslims? Are Christian Kings immune from committing heinous crimes against humans?

2. Background Of Quran 9:29

“Fight those of the People of the Book who do not [truly] believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice,until they pay the tax and agree to submit.” – Quran 9:29 (Abdul Haleem Eng. Translation)

Transliteration

“Qatiloo allatheena layu/minoona billahi wala bilyawmial-akhiri wala yuharrimoona ma harramaAllahu warasooluhu wala yadeenoona deena alhaqqimina allatheena ootoo alkitaba hattayuAAtoo aljizyata AAan yadin wahum saghiroon” – Q. 9:29

Surah 9:29 is regarded by the earliest scholars of Islam to have been revealed on the occasion of Tabuk expedition. This is the opinion of Mujahid Ibn Jabr (645 – 722) [2], Hud b. Muhakkam al-Huwwari (d. 893) [3], Al-Tabari (838 – 923) [4], Al-Baghawi (1044 – 1122), Ibn Kathir (1301 – 1373) [5], Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292 – 1350) [6] and others.

3. Rebuttal

In this current article, I will respond to some of the claims he has made in his recent piece on Surah 9:29. Glen Roberts starts by writing:

“Everyone agrees that there was no opposing Byzantine army at Tabuk when the Muslims arrived. It is highly doubtful that one was ever there, since it is supported neither by external sources nor the accounts of early Muslim historians.  However, it is critical to DTT’s interpretation of verse 9:29 as pertaining to self-defense.”

“Everyone agrees”, who are they? Why aren’t any authentic reports mentioned in your article? Could you kindly show us the early authentic reports where it mentions that no Byzantine army was there when Prophet Muhammed (p) set off to Tabuk? You have not shown a single early source that is in agreement with your fictionalised history. We explained in our earlier pieces that the Muslim sources show that an army was there. This is confirmed in Sahih Muslim, Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Futuh al-Buldan, Al-Zurqani and other classical reports. You know very well that does that negate the fact that they fled. They left the area they wanted to engage in fighting. When the confirmed reports show that they were there, but when Muslims arrived, they fled – how does that not support our position that they ran off? Furthermore, your claim that our early Muslim sources do not point out that there was an army there, you’re clearly misleading your readers here. We showed a number of sources that said an army was there. Here are some of reports. The respected 9th century scholar Muslim Ibn al-Hajjaj (821 – 875) states that the Muslims “had to confront a large army” at Tabuk:

“…this is my story of remaining back from Allah’s Messenger on the occasion of the Battle of TABUK. Never did I possess means enough and (my circumstances) more favourable than at the occasion of this expedition. And, by Allah, I had never before this expedition simultaneously in my possession two rides. Allah’s Messenger set out for this expedition in extremely hot season; the journey was long and the land (which he and his army had to cover) was waterless and HE HAD TO CONFRONT A LARGE ARMY, so he informed the Muslims about the actual situation (they had to face), so that they should adequately equip themselves for this expedition, and he also told them the destination where he intended to go. …” (Sahih Muslim Book 37, Hadith 6670)

There is a second source, this one is even earlier than the previous report. Scholar Ibn Sa’d (784 – 845) in his Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir writes that reports had reached Prophet Muhammed (p) that the Byzantine (Romans) had “concentrated large forces” and Heraclius had sent some his military to “Balqa”. This is when Muhammed (p) “summoned” his companions to Tabuk:

“They (narrators) saud: It (report) reached the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, that the ROMANS HAD CONCENTRATED LARGE FORCES IN SYRIA had, that Heraclius had disbursed one year’s salary to his soldiers, and that tribes of Lakhm, Judham, ‘Amilah and Ghassan had joined hands with him. THEY SENT HAD SENT THEIR VANGUARDS TO AL-BALQA. THE MESSENGER of Allah, SUMMONED THE PEOPLE TO MARCH. He set out and informed them about the place which he intended, so that they could make necessary preparations. He sent (messengers) to Makkah and to the tribes of Arabia (asking them) to send help. This took place in the days of intense heat.” (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, [Translated by S. Moinul Haq (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2009)], by Ibn Sa’d, volume 2, page 203 – 204)

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

“Tabuk make terms. When in the year 9 AH the Prophet marched to TABUK in Syria for the invasion of those of the Greeks, Amilah, Lakhm, Judham and others WHOM HE LEARNT HAD ASSEMBLED AGAINST HIM, he met no resistance. So he spent a few days in Tabuk, whose inhabitants made terms with him agreeing to pay poll-tax.” (The origins of the Islamic State, being a translation from the Arabic accompanied with annotations Geographic and historic notes of the Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan of al-Imam Abu’l Abbas Ahmad Ibn Jabir Al Baladhuri, [Translated by Phillip Khurti Hitti, PHD, 1916], volume 1, page 92)

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

“The Battle Of Tabuk
Rajab 9 A. H.
On the authority of Imran Ibn Husayn that the Christian Arabs wrote to Hercules, the King Of Rome that Muhammad passed away and that the people were dying because of the drought that they were experiencing. It was therefore a very appropriate TIME TO ATTACK THE ARABS (MUSLIMS). Hercules immediately issued the order for preparations. A fully equipped army of 40 000 was prepared.” (Mu’jam az-Zawa’id, by Tabarani, volume 6, page 191) (Siratul Mustafa [Translated by Maulana Mahomed Mahomedy – Madrasah Arabia Islamia and Zam Zam Publishers – Fifth Authorized Edition, 2015] by Hadrat Maulana Idris Sahib Kandehlawi, volume 3, page 96)

In another different narration we are told from the Egyptian scholar Ahmad Ibn Ali Maqrizi (1364–  1442) that the Tabuk expedition was taken as a result of learning from Nabatean caravans that Heraclius was planning on attacking Muslims in their region:

“The expedition of Tabuk was undertaken on learning from Nabatean caravans coming to Medina that Heraclius intended to invade Muslim territory” (Maqriziy, Imta’, volume 1, page 445). (The battlefields of the Prophet Muhammad – With Maps, Illustrantions and Sketches – A contribution To Muslim Military History [Kitab Bhavan – Habib & Co., Hyderabad, 1992], by Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah, page 131)

The 14th century scholar Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292 – 1350) too states that the Byzantine’s had amassed a large army:

“Qala Ibn Sa’d: The Messenger of Allaah was informed that the Romans had amassed a sizeable army in Syria, and that Heracules had provided his companions with enough provisions to last a year. Thereafter, seven people came to the Messenger of Allah seeking transportation, so he said: (I have no means of transporting you). As a result, they turned away and began to weep since they were unable to spend for the sake of Allaah.” (Zaad al-Ma’ad, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, page 459)

Further down Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya states that the Prophet (p) “awaited” the enemy (Byzantine’s) at Tabuk:

“This was the guidance of the messenger of Allaah and his companions as you see. As for the opinions of others, Ahmad has said: if one intends to reside for four days, he must perform prayer completely. However, if he intends to reside for less than four days, he may reduce his prayer. As for the previous narrations, it was his interpretation that the messenger of Allaah and his companions were uncertain when they would depart. However, this is obviously questionable, because the messenger of Allaah conquered Makka where he layed the foundation of Islaam, and this definitely took time. Similarly, he AWAITED THE ENEMY AT TABOOK, and he knew that they would not arrive within four days. As for Ibn Umar who resided in Azerbaijan for six months reducing prayer, he knew that the snow would not melt within four days, and what has preceded applies to Anas who resided in Syria for two years and the companions who resided at Ramhormoz for seven months.” (Zaad al-Ma’ad, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, page 477)

So far we have shown 6 sources which agree that the Byzantine’s had assembled troops to attack the Muslim community and that the enemy army was there. But let’s not stop here.

Ibn Kathir (1301 – 1373) which is Glen Roberts favourite in citing as reference in his articles, states that Heraclius had assembled troops and tried to assassinate the Prophet (p) just before Tabuk:

“Masjid Ad-Dirar and Masjid At-Taqwa
The reason behind revealing these honorable Ayat is that before the Messenger of Allah migrated to Al-Madinah, there was a man from Al-Khazraj called “Abu `Amir Ar-Rahib (the Monk).” This man embraced Christianity before Islam and read the Scriptures. During the time of Jahiliyyah, Abu Amir was known for being a worshipper and being a notable person among Al-Khazraj. When the Messenger of Allah arrived at Al-Madinah after the Hijrah, the Muslims gathered around him and the word of Islam was triumphant on the day of Badr, causing Abu `Amir, the cursed one, to choke on his own saliva and announce his enmity to Islam. He fled from Al-Madinah to the idolators of Quraysh in Makkah to support them in the WAR AGAINST THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH. The Quraysh united their forces and the bedouins who joined them for the battle of Uhud, during which Allah tested the Muslims, but the good end is always for the pious and righteous people. The rebellious Abu Amir dug many holes in the ground between the two camps, into one of which the Messenger fell, injuring his face and breaking one of his right lower teeth. He also sustained a head injury. Before the fighting started, Abu Amir approached his people among the Ansar and tried to convince them to support and agree with him. When they recognized him, they said, “May Allah never burden an eye by seeing you, O Fasiq one, O enemy of Allah!” They cursed him and he went back declaring, “By Allah! Evil has touched my people after I left.” The Messenger of Allah called Abu Amir to Allah and recited the Qur’an to him before his flight to Makkah, but he refused to embrace Islam and REBELLED. The Messenger invoked Allah that Abu Amir die as an outcast in an alien land, and his invocation came true. After the battle of Uhud was finished, ABU AMIR realized that the Messenger’s call was still rising and gaining momentum, so HE WENT TO HERACLIUS, THE EMPEROR OF ROME, ASKING FOR HIS AID AGAINST THE PROPHET. HERACLIUS GAVE HIM PROMISES AND ABU AMIR REMAINED WITH HIM. He also wrote to several of his people in Al-Madinah, who embraced hypocrisy, promising and insinuating to them THAT HE WILL LEAD AN ARMY TO FIGHT THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH TO DEFEAT HIM AND HIS CALL. He ordered them to establish a stronghold where he could send his emissaries and to serve as an outpost when he joins them later on. These hypocrites built a Masjid next to the Masjid in Quba’, and they finished building it BEFORE the Messenger went to TABUK. They went to the Messenger inviting him to pray in their Masjid so that it would be a proof that the Messenger approved of their Masjid.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, last accessed 27th February 2017, http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1590&Itemid=64 )

This is also confirmed by 14th century scholar Ibn Juzayy (1321 – 1357). He writes:

“… (to create division between the muminun) They meant to separate the believers from the Mosque of Quba’. (and in readiness for those who previously made war on Allah and His Messenger ) i.e. waiting for the one WHO FIGHTS ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER. He was Abu ‘Amir ar-Rahib who the Messenger of Allah called a fasiq. He was one of the people of Madina. When the Messenger of Allah came to Madina, he FOUGHT with rejection and hyprocrisy, and then left for Makka and FORMED THE PARTIES OF THE IDOLATERS. When Makka was conquered, he went to Ta’if. When the people of TA’IF became Muslim, he went to SYRIA AND SOUGHT THE HELP OF CAESAR. He died there. The people of the Mosque of Harm said, “When Abu ‘Amir came to Madina, he prayed in this mosque.” “Before” indicates what he did with the Parties.” (Tafsir Ibn Juzayy, last accessed 27th February 2017, online source, https://bewley.virtualave.net/tawba4.html )

The 11th century scholar Ali ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi (d. 1075), has this account too:

“… The Banu ‘Amr ibn ‘Awf built a mosque at Quba’ and sent for the Messenger of Allah, to come to them. He went there and prayed in that mosque. Their brothers from the Banu Ghunm ibn ‘Awf envied them resentfully and said: ‘Let us built a mosque and send for the Messenger of Allah, to pray in it as he prayed in the mosque of our brothers, and let Abu ‘Amir al-Rahib (the monk) also pray in it when he comes back from Syria‘. This Abu ‘Amir had embraced Christianity and became a monk in the pre-Islamic period. But when the Messenger of Allah, moved to Medina, Abu ‘Amir rejected the religion of Islam and showed enmity toward it. The Prophet, called him then Abu ‘Amir al-Fasiq (the corrupt)… ABU AMIR LEFT FOR SYRIA AND THEN SENT A LETTER TO THE HYPOCRITES in which he wrote: ‘PREPARE YOURSELVES AND MAKE READY WHATEVER YOU CAN OF FORCE AND WEAPONS. Built a Mosque for me, for I AM GOING TO THE CAESAR TO REQUEST HIM TO SEND WITH ME BYZANTINE SOLDIERS SO THAT I DRIVE OUT MUHAMMAD AND HIS COMPANIONS‘. And so, they built for him a mosque by the Quba’ mosque. Those who built this mosque were 12 men: Khidham ibn Khalid (this mosque of opposition was an extension of his house), Tha’labah ibn Hatib, Mu’attib ibn Qushayr, Abu Habibah ibn al-Az’ar, ‘Abbad ibn Hunayf, Jariyah ibn ‘Amir, his two sons Majma’ and Zayd, Nabtal ibn Harith, Bahzaj ibn ‘Uthman, Bijad ibn ‘Uthman and Wadi’ah ibn Thabit. When they finished building this mosque, they went to the Messenger of Allah, and said: ‘We have built a mosque for the sick and the needy and also for use in rainy and wintry nights, and we would like you to come and pray in it’.” (Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi, last accessed 12th May 2017: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=107&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 )

Tafsir al-Jalalayn (two 15/16th century scholars) affirms this incident:

“And, among them, those who have chosen a mosque — these were twelve men from among the hypocrites — by way of HARM, to cause distress for those of the mosque of Quba’, and disbelief, since they built it on the orders of the monk ABU ‘AMIR, as a sanctuary for him, so that whoever comes from his side may stay there: HE HAD GONE TO THE BYZANTINE EMPEROR (QAYSAR) TO BRING TROOPS TO FIGHT AGAINST THE PROPHET (s), and to cause division among the believers, who pray in the mosque of Quba’, by having some of these pray in their [the hypocrites’] mosque, and as an outpost, an observation post, for those who waged war against God and His Messenger before, that is, before it was built — meaning the above-mentioned Abu ‘Amir — they will swear: ‘We desired nothing, by building it, but, to do, good’, by way of kindness towards the poor in times of [heavy] rain or [extreme] heat and in order to provide [a place of worship] for the Muslims; and God bears witness that they are truly liars, in this [claim of theirs]. They had asked the Prophet (s) to perform prayers in it, and so the following was revealed…” (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, last accessed 12th May 2017: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=107&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 )

This is also reported by the 17th century Maliki scholar Muhammad al-Zurqani (1645 – 1710):

“HE DIRAR MOSQUE
The hypocrites were always planning to create dissensions amongst the Muslims. They had long been scheming to erect at this place a mosque, to rival that of Quba. Their pretet was that the People, who were unable to go to the Prophet’s mosque owing to their infirmity or for any other reason, might say their prayers there. ABU AMIR, a Medinite, who had turned Christian, had asked the Hypocrites to start their preparations AS HE WAS GOING TO ASK HERACLEUS FOR MILITARY AID, SO THAT THE COUNTRY MIGHT BE PURGED OF ISLAM.” (Zurqani, volume 3, page 91) (Sirat-Un-Nabi (‘The Life Of The Prophet’] [Rendered Into English by M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni – Idarah-I Adabiyati-I Delli, 2009 Qasimjan St, Delhi (India), 1983] by Allama Sibli Nu’mani, volume 2, page 238 – 239)

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292 – 1350):

“Aboo ‘Aamir said to them: build your masjid and seek whatever defense you can, because I am going to meet Caesar. Thereafter, HE ARRIVED FROM ROME WITH AN ARMY AND TO BANISH MUHAMMAD AND HIS COMPANIONS. In any event, once the masjid was completed, they came to the prophet and said: we have completed the construction of our masjid and would like for you to pray therein and to supplicate for benediction. As a result, Allaah the magnificent revealed the following: {never stand therein. Rather, you should stand within a masjid established upon reverence…} [At Tawba/108].” .” (Zaad al-Ma’ad, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, page 470)

So far we have shown 6 reports and 6 classical scholars that agree that Byzantine’s were preparing to attack the Muslim community. Glen Roberts was unable to respond to the classical scholars who were mentioned that the Byzantine army were ready to attack and murder Muslims, he went on to write:

“DTT offers four sahih hadith verses and a variety of other opinion from later or weaker sources which seem to embellish the Byzantine threat as the centuries progress.”

I challenge Glen Roberts to show us one of our reports as being from “weaker sources”. In his entire article, Glen did not show us one classical source which rejected any of our sources. In fact, we encourage our respected readers to type the names of those who have been mentioned in relation to Tabuk expedition, in Google search engine and reputable sites will point out that the people we presented are highly respected scholars who have been praised throughout the centuries to the very present day.

Glen continues:

“The Tabuk expedition is addressed by early biographers.  None portray it in terms of self-defense on the part of Muslims.  Ibn Hisham even calls it a “raid on the Byzantines.”  This is an act of offensive warfare, with no indication of a threat.
Ibn Ishaq agrees:
The apostle stayed in Medina from Dhu’l-Hijja to Rajab, and then gave orders to prepare to raid the Byzantines… The apostle ordered his companions to prepare to raid the Byzantines at a time when men were hard pressed; the heat was oppressive and there was a drought; fruit was ripe (To and shade was eagerly sought) and the men wanted to stay in the shade with their fruit and dislike traveling at that season…

Notice from the screenshot below, Glen deliberately leaves out the page number and does not give the full account of Ibn Ishaq to mislead readers:

There are two points I need to address here:

3.1. Glen deceptively hides the rest of Ibn Ishaq’s report and does not give readers the page number for this quote, for if he did, readers would be aware that he is hiding important information for his readers not to read. Ibn Ishaq actually reports further down that the Prophet (p) was going to face a big army at Tabuk:

“The Apostle ordered his companions to prepare to raid the Byzantines at a time when men were hard pressed; the heat was oppressive and there was a drought; fruit was ripe (T. and shade was eagerly sought) and the men wanted to stay in the shade with their fruit and disliked travelling at that season. Now the Apostle nearly always referred allusively to the destination of a raid and announced that he was making for a place other than that which he actually intended. This was the sole exception, for he said plainly that he was making for the Byzantines because the journey was long, the season difficult, and THE ENEMY IN GREAT STRENGTH, so that the men could make suitable preparations. He ordered them to get ready and told them that he was making for the Byzantines.” ((The life of Muhammad: a translation of Isḥaq’s Sirat rasul Allah [Translator: Alfred Guillaume – Oxford University Press], page 602)

This report clearly indicates that an army was already there. The claim that the enemy was not there has no historical bases. What was the point for the companions to make sure they were well equipped militarily if the Byzantine’s weren’t there? This shows that an army was there, by Ibn Ishaq’s own account.

3.2. The second point that needs addressing is his claim that “raid” somehow shows that there is no indication of threat on the Byzantine’s part:

“raid on the Byzantines.”  This is an act of offensive warfare, with no indication of a threat.

This is quite a weak argument. Raiding an enemy does not equate to the party not threatening them in the first place. For example, a party could be ready or challenge the other party to warfare, however, if the second party gets to the first party and “raids” them, this would be classed as lawful or as self-defence in war. For example, Ibn Ishaq gives us a good example on this.

Ibn Ishaq reports that the Prophet (p) raided the Banu Mustaliq, however, further down he clarifies that this was done as a result of the “Banu al-Mustaliq were gathering together against him” i.e., warfare. This clearly is self-defence even though the Prophet (p) got to them before they attacked him and his community:

THE RAID ON B. AL-MUSTALIQ
The apostle stayed in medina during the latter part of Jumada’l-Akhira and Rajab; then he attacked b. al-Mustaliq of Khuza’a in Sha’ban A.H. 6. Asim b, Umar b. Qatada and Abdullah b. Abu Bakr and Muhammad b. Yahya b. Habban each told me a part of the following story: The apostle received news that B. al-Mustaliq were gathering together against him, their leader being al-Harith b. Abu Dirar, the father of Juwayriya d. al-Harith (afterwards) wife of the apostle. When the apostle heard about them he went out and met them at a watering place of theirs called al-Muraysi in the direction of Qudayd towards the shore. There was a fight and God put the B. al-Mustaliq to flight and killed some of them…” (The life of Muhammad: a translation of Isḥaq’s Sirat rasul Allah [Translator: Alfred Guillaume – Oxford University Press], page 490)

For further information on the Banu Mustaliq affair, please click on the following article: “Invasion of Banu Mustaliq – Who Started The Hostilities And Aggression?

Glen then goes on to cite a second source to substantiate his claims:

“Ibn Kathir, a very respected historian, writes at length about Muhammad’s motivation in sending an army to Tabuk:
When God Almighty decreed that the polytheists should be prevented from approaching the Sacred Mosque, whether in the pilgrimage or at other times, the Quraysh said they would be deprived of the commercial activity that took place during the pilgrimage, and that they would therefore suffer financial loss. And so God compensated them for that by ordering them to battle the people of the scriptures so that they either accepted Islam or paid the jizya tax (“being in a state of submission”).
The Messenger of God therefore decided to battle the Byzantines. This was because they were the people nearest to him and those most appropriate to invite to the truth because of their proximity to Islam and to those who believed in it. God Almighty had stated, “0 you who believe, fight those unbelievers who are near you. Let them see severity in you; and know that God is with those who are pious.”  (Ibn Kathir Vol.4 p.1)

In order to understand history surrounding these events we need to take the sources around this incident as a whole. Without it, we will not get the full picture of it. Taking snippet quote(s) of Ibn Kathir and ignoring other pages does not do justice to history. Ibn Kathir (1301 – 1373) further down, several pages later writes that the Byzantine emperor along with Abu Amir were attempting to assassinate the Prophet (p) and sent an army to attack the Muslim community just before the Tabuk expedition:

“Masjid Ad-Dirar and Masjid At-Taqwa
The reason behind revealing these honorable Ayat is that before the Messenger of Allah migrated to Al-Madinah, there was a man from Al-Khazraj called “Abu `Amir Ar-Rahib (the Monk).” This man embraced Christianity before Islam and read the Scriptures. During the time of Jahiliyyah, Abu Amir was known for being a worshipper and being a notable person among Al-Khazraj. When the Messenger of Allah arrived at Al-Madinah after the Hijrah, the Muslims gathered around him and the word of Islam was triumphant on the day of Badr, causing Abu `Amir, the cursed one, to choke on his own saliva and announce his enmity to Islam. He fled from Al-Madinah to the idolators of Quraysh in Makkah to support them in the WAR AGAINST THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH. The Quraysh united their forces and the bedouins who joined them for the battle of Uhud, during which Allah tested the Muslims, but the good end is always for the pious and righteous people. The rebellious Abu Amir dug many holes in the ground between the two camps, into one of which the Messenger fell, injuring his face and breaking one of his right lower teeth. He also sustained a head injury. Before the fighting started, Abu Amir approached his people among the Ansar and tried to convince them to support and agree with him. When they recognized him, they said, “May Allah never burden an eye by seeing you, O Fasiq one, O enemy of Allah!” They cursed him and he went back declaring, “By Allah! Evil has touched my people after I left.” The Messenger of Allah called Abu Amir to Allah and recited the Qur’an to him before his flight to Makkah, but he refused to embrace Islam and REBELLED. The Messenger invoked Allah that Abu Amir die as an outcast in an alien land, and his invocation came true. After the battle of Uhud was finished, ABU AMIR realized that the Messenger’s call was still rising and gaining momentum, so HE WENT TO HERACLIUS, THE EMPEROR OF ROME, ASKING FOR HIS AID AGAINST THE PROPHET. HERACLIUS GAVE HIM PROMISES AND ABU AMIR REMAINED WITH HIM. He also wrote to several of his people in Al-Madinah, who embraced hypocrisy, promising and insinuating to them THAT HE WILL LEAD AN ARMY TO FIGHT THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH TO DEFEAT HIM AND HIS CALL. He ordered them to establish a stronghold where he could send his emissaries and to serve as an outpost when he joins them later on. These hypocrites built a Masjid next to the Masjid in Quba’, and they finished building it BEFORE the Messenger went to TABUK. They went to the Messenger inviting him to pray in their Masjid so that it would be a proof that the Messenger approved of their Masjid.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, last accessed 27th February 2017, http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1590&Itemid=64 )

 

Glen Roberts, you cannot cherry pick and misrepresent our history the way you do. Glen continues:

“The real reason for the expedition then, is loot and tribute (jizya) to compensate for the loss of revenue from the haj.”

If this was the case then the Muslims would have attacked the Byzantine months before this. Surah 9:28 was revealed several months before 9:29. Like we clarified in the previous article,

“The verse 9:28 was revealed in connection with Hunayn incident which took place long before the expedition of Tabuk. No doubt they were going to get compensated, but this has no connection in relation to the said incident under discussion. Surah 9:28 did not trigger off the Muslims to fight for mere money. What started the war as we have seen from early sources is the aggression and hostility from the Byzantine’s.”

The evidence for Byzantine hostility has clearly been demonstrated in a number of reports previously cited. Glen continues:

“DTT’s manipulation is sometimes more subtle than ignoring reliable accounts and putting forth others as if they are on equal standing.  Sometimes they change the wording of hadith verses to better fit their agenda. As an example, DTT refers to a sahih hadith verse by Jami at-Termidhi:
The phrase “We heard that the Ghassan were preparing their horses to attack us” leaves out a word.  Here is how it reads in the source:
The word “stories” was deliberately dropped by DTT because it belies the fact that these were unsubstantiated rumors of an attack that did not materialize.

That is false. We may have not given the full account of the report, but nowhere did we claim that these reports were based on facts, and henceforth led to the expedition of Tabuk against the Byzantine’s. This was not our position. Our position of pointing out those reports were that these stories, or reports were circulating months before Tabuk expedition. Yet the Muslims did not initiate any fighting against the enemy. Here are our words:

Roberts also claims that the expedition was set out based on “rumours” and not factual evidence, then why did the Muslims few months before Tabuk expedition not set out against the pro-Byzantine the Ghassan tribe when the Muslims heard that they were advancing against them but the Muslims did not do anything but stayed, as shown in the above Hadith reports?

In fact, we attached a direct link to Ghassan and the “rumor” claims. We addressed this and clearly said the report cited by Glen may have been a “rumor”, here are our words (article was written in November 2016):

“What the critic(s) leave out deliberately, is that even though these reports may be a “rumor”, the Muslims did not retaliate, nor got their troops ready to attack them. These very reports show that even though they may have been worried and anxious of hearing of the impending army of the Byzantine’s, they did not prepare themselves to deal with them since it was only a story circulating at the time. Furthermore, if they found these “rumors” to be true (even though they are) in this instance, why didn’t the companions prepared themselves to engage the enemy? Why didn’t they ask the Prophet to get ready and set out against them? Why did they find the Prophet Muhammed (p) having some home issues more important than the enemies attacking and aiming to kill them? As I mentioned, at this stage the story that was circulating was not confirmed by the Muslims, hence, they Byzantines were left alone.” The fact of the matter is the Muslims only advanced months later when there was clear evidence of Byzantne’s impending army.”

The above information shows what our stance was and it vindicates us from his lies against us. Clearly Glen Roberts is misleading his readers by making things up about us. We clearly wrote in our previous articles that these reports at the time may have been a “rumor” and “story” which were unconfirmed at the time. Glen continues:

“Discover the Truth’s insistence on arguing history distracts from the most damning fact about verse 9:29, which is the textual context.  The passage clearly defines targets of violence not by their threat to Muslims, but by their religious beliefs.  There is no reasonable explanation for this.”

The classical scholars are very clear that there was an army at Tabuk. Your claims that the Tabuk expedition was based on religious beliefs is not in accord with history. The historical context surrounding the Quranic verse refutes your claims.

“It is also inconvenient that the next verse in the Quran’s “perfectly arranged” sequence, 9:30, explicitly curses Christians and Jews for their beliefs and also calls for their destruction.  Neither verse makes mention of self-defense or an opposing army, which DTT claims is so critical to interpretation.”

As we demonstrated in the earlier article, the companions of Prophet Muhammed (p) all agreed that Quran 9:30 was revealed in regards to some Jews in Madinah, who exalted Ezra. It had nothing to do with Quran 9:29 incident:

“Ibn Abbas states: Sallam b. Mishkam, Nu’man b. Abi awfa, shas b. Qays, and Malik al-sayf [Jews] came to the Prophet Muhammad (p) and said: ‘How can we follow you if you renounce that which came before you. You do not think that Ezra is the son of God?’ So Allah revealed to him the verse.” (Tafsir al-Baghawi, (4/36), online source, http://islamport.com/l/tfs/799/1238.htm )

For more information on Q. 9:30, please see the following article: “Ezra (Uzayr) The ‘Son Of God’

Quran 9:29 and 9:30 have no connections to each other. This is a historical fact. Glen tries to connect the two verses together in order to mislead readers. Even the Tabi’een, those who met the Prophet Muhammed’s companions agree on this point. For example, Mujahid Ibn Jabr (645 – 722) tells us that 9:29 was revealed in regards to Tabuk expedition:

“Mujahid Said: ‘This was when Muhammad (p) ordered his companions for Ghazwah Tabook.’
حين أمر محمدٌ وأصحابه بغزوة تبوك (Tafsir al-Tabari, on Surah 9:29, online source, http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/tabary/sura9-aya29.html )

Mujahid Ibn Jabr’s report is also reproduced by the classical scholar Abu Ubaid al- Qasim Ibn Sallam (774 – 838):

“Marwan Ibn Mu’awiya al-Fazari related to us from Awf Ibn Abi Jumayla from Yazid al-Farasi from Ibn Abbas from Uthman, God have mercy on him, who said: ‘Bara’a was toward the end of the revelation of the Qur’an.’ Hajjaj related to us from Ibn Jurayj from Mujahid, about the words of the Exalted … saying that ‘It was revealed when the Messenger of God pbuh) and his Companions were commanded to engage in the Battle of Tabuk‘. ‘I heard Hushaym saying, ‘Tabuk was one of the last battles waged by the Messenger of God.'” (Kitab al-Amwaal by Abu Ubaid al- Qasim Ibn Sallam, page 18)

Glen wants us to reject the whole history of Islam for his shallow and deceptive understanding of Islam in order to mislead innocent readers on Q. 9:29. As for his claim that:

explicitly curses Christians and Jews for their beliefs and also CALLS for their destruction.”

When Glen does not have any evidence he throws in his own commentary. Notice the above, now compare it to Quran 9:30,

The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. MAY ALLAH destroy them; how are they deluded?” Quran 9:30 (Sahih International)

Readers would notice that the destruction is in the hereafter. It is God Almighty that imposes this punishment. Readers would be aware here, Glen is using “sleight of hand” to mislead readers.

In the following account, Glen continues this time round speaking about a Christian family:

“When confronted with this established account, in which a foreign army invades a peaceful community, lays in wait for a family to leave their home on a hunt, kills some and forces others into paying “protection” money, DTT admits the event in their rebuttal but conjures up a vividly imagined scenario in which the unsuspecting family poses an eminent threat (to the well-equipped foreign army of 30,000 warriors).”

We did provide scholar Shaykh Allamah Shibli Nomani (1857 – 1914) who is not a modernist by any standard. The late respected scholar did explain that this tribe had close alliances with the Byzantines and even helped them during Tabuk:

“Dumat al-Jandal (also pronounced as Daumat al-Jandal), which is five stages from Damascus, there was an Arab chief, UKAIDIR BY NAME, WHO OWED ALLEGIANCE TO THE ROMAN EMPEROR. Khalid Ibn Walid was despatched with four hundred and twenty men to subdue him. Khalid made captive, and later on released him on condition that he would personally appear before the Prophet (p) to settle terms. Accordingly, he arrived accompanied by his brother and was promised protection.” (Sirat -un- Nabi [Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam] by Shaykh Allamah Shibli Nomani, volume 2, page 238)

An even earlier historian and scholar attests to this fact also. The 10th century historan Ali Ibn al-Husayn al-Mas’udi (896 – 956) states that Ukaydir Ibn Abdal Malik was a Christian who had recognised the “supremacy of the Byzantine Emperor” [7]:

“…Ukaydir Ibn Abdal-Malik al-Sukuni, of the Kindah tribe, was the lord of the oasis. He was a Christian who had recognised the supremacy of the Byzantine emperor, Heraclius. Since Ukaydir was harassing the trade caravans bound for Madinah, the Prophet set out with his companions to punish him, but Ukaydir came to hear of the Prophet’s raid and fled with all the inhabitants of Dummat al-Jandal. When the Prophet entered the oasis, he found nobody, so he returned to Madinah.” (Al-Tanbih wal Ishraf [Leiden, 1967], by Ali Ibn al-Husayn al-Mas’udi, page 248)

Secondly, we showed historical sources where this tribe, along with their King had previously attacked Muslims before. This is recorded in a number of early sources. For example, Kitab al-tabaqat al-Kabir – Ibn sa’d (784 – 845) reports:

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

This is also confirmed by the 9th-century historian Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari (838 – 923):

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

Sharh al-Mawahib – Muhammed al-Zarqani (1645 – 1710) has this account too:

“Expedition of Dawmatul-Jandal
During Rabi’ul-Awwal, Rasulullah received word that the inhabitants of Dawmatul-Jandal were preparing to launch an attack against Madinah. In the company of one thousand Sahabah Rasulullah set out for Dawmatul-Jandal on the 25th of Rabi’ul-Awwal 5 AH. The moment they sensed the looming advent of the Muslim army, they rapidly scattered away. Without any form of physical combat, Rasulullah returned to Madinah on the 20th of Rab’iuth-Thani.” (Sharh al-Mawahib, by Zarqani, volume 2, page 95) (Siratul Mustafa [Translated by Maulana Mahomed Mahomedy – Madrasah Arabia Islamia and Zam Zam Publishers – Fifth Authorized Edition, 2015] by Hadrat Maulana Idris Sahib Kandehlawi, volume 3, page 306)

Glen’s final words,

The contorted rendering by modern-day apologists must have been lost on the Companions as well, since they went on to expand the Muslim empire through offensive Jihad in the way of their prophet.
“This was a season when people were hard pressed; the heat was oppressive and the country was passing through a dry spell. At the time, fruit was ripe and shade was dearly sought. People love to stay where they have shade and fruit [trees], and find leaving them distasteful. The Messenger of God would seldom go out on a military expedition without alluding to a destination and announcing [publicly] that he meant [a placel342 other than that intended. The Tabuk expedition was the exception, in that he explained [the particulars of the expedition openly] to the people. This was because of the long distance, the difficult season, and the enemy’s numerical superiority. He wanted the people to be fully prepared, so he ordered them to make ready and informed them that his objective was the Byzantines. They prepared themselves despite their dislike for that approach and what it entailed, as well as their respect for the Byzantines and their fighting ability.” (Tabari, volume 9, page 47 – 48)

I think readers would know by now that we did acknowledge in our articles that the Sahaba (Companions) did conquer many lands by force. However, we explained that this was done as a result of those lands having Kings or rulers who prohibited the activity of missionary work i.e., Muslims were not allowed to invite people to Islam. As such, it lead to many of them being conquered.

Where there was freedom and security for Muslims, there was no war with that country. The fact that Sahaba (companions of the Prophet) never attacked Abyssinia in their entire lives proves our point. The Abyssinian Christian King not only gave freedom but security also to the minority Muslim community in their country. This was one of the main reasons the Prophet Muhammed (p) ordered to “Leave the Abyssinians alone”:

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

Sunan an-Nasa’i (829 – 915):

The Messenger of Allah said at that point “Leave the Ethiopians alone so long as they leave you alone, and leave the Turks alone so long as they leave you alone.’” (Sunan an-Nasa’i volume 1, Book 25, Hadith 3178. Eng. Tran., Hasan Darussalam, https://www.sunnah.com/nasai/25/92 )

Sunan Abi Dawud (817 – 889):

“(1594) Chapter: Prohibition Of Agitating The Turks And Abyssinians
“Narrated from Abi Sukainah One of the Companions: The Prophet said: Let (leave) the Abyssinians alone as long as they let you alone, and let the Turks alone as long as they leave you alone.” (Sunan Abi Dawud Book 38, Hadith 4288. Eng. Tran., Hasan Al-Albani, https://www.sunnah.com/abudawud/39/12 )

As we wrote in the previous article, the Prophet Muhammed’s entire life mission was to spread the message of Islam, stand up against injustice and oppression. The Prophet (p) fought those who persecuted/oppressed people. His words in a authentically transmitted Hadith shows this:

“(O Allah, apportion to us such fear as should serve as a barrier between us and acts of disobedience; and such obedience as will take us to Your Jannah; and such as will make easy for us to bear in the calamities of this world. O Allah! let us enjoy our hearing, our sight and our power as long as You keep us alive and make our heirs from our own offspring, and make our REVENGE RESTRICTED TO THOSE WHO OPPRESS US, and SUPPORT US AGAINST THOSE WHO ARE HOSTILE TO US let no misfortune afflict our Deen; let not worldly affairs be our principal concern, or the ultimate limit of our knowledge, and let not those rule over us who do not show mercy to us).” (Riyad as-Salihin Book 5, Hadith 834 Eng. Tran., https://sunnah.com/riyadussaliheen/5/21 )

4. Conclusion

Summing up the facts:

1. Quran 9:29 was revealed on account of the Byzantine army advancing to attack the Muslim community.

2. Quran 9:29 was revealed in self-defence.

3. Quran 9:29 was sent down in relation to Tabuk expedition, where the Byzantine army were assembling to attack.

4. Muslims were under attack, if the Prophet (p) and his companions had not headed towards Tabuk they would have succeeded in advancing in Muslim territory and murder many Muslims. When all the historical sources surrounding Quran 9:29 is read together, it thus agrees that the Byzantine’s were the aggressors. [8] [9]

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:

(1) – Prophet Muhammed’s Charity To Non-Muslims

(2) – Generosity Towards Non-Muslim Neighbours

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

(4) – The Relationship Of The Muslim With Non-Muslims

(5) – What Does Islam Teach about Justice?

(6) – Early Expeditions And Battles Of Islam

(7)Most Misinterpreted Verses Of The Quran?

 

References:

[1] The article of Glen Roberts, can be accessed here: http://web.archive.org/web/20170703123527/https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/games/discover-truth/verses/9-29.aspx
[2] Tafsir Mujahid [Edition. Abu Muḥammad al-Asyuti – Beirut, 2005], by Mujahid Ibn Jabr, page 99
[3] Tafsir Kitab Allah Al-Aziz [Edition. Balhaj b. Sa’id Sharfi. Beirut, 1990] by Hud b. Muhakkam al-Huwwari, volume 2, page 125 – 126
[4] A summary on 9:29 from At-Tabari (838 – 923 CE):
“عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلا بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ… حِينَ أُمِرَ مُحَمَّدٌ وَأَصْحَابُهُ بِغَزْوَةِ تَبُوكَ
Mujahid reported concerning the verse, “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day…” that it was revealed when Muhammad and his companions were commanded with the expedition of Tabuk. The expedition of Tabuk was preceded by the battle of Mu’tah which began when the emissary of the Prophet was assassinated while delivering a letter to a Roman ally.” (Tafseer At-Tabari on Quran 9:29. Online source, http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=1&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 )
[5] Tafsir Ibn Kathir [Abridged by A Group of Scholars Under The Supervision Of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri. Maktaba Dar-us-Salam – Second Edition, 2003], volume 4, page 405)
[6] Classical scholar Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya alludes that the Jizya verse (Q. 9:29) was revealed in the year of Tabuk expedition. He writes:
“The Jizya was not introduced until the year of Tabook which was three years after Khaybar.” (Zaad al-Ma’ad, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, page 304)
[7] Ali Ibn al-Husayn al-Mas’udi (896 – 956) is criticised by some scholars in the past being Shia/Mutazlitte. Putting his religious beliefs out of the way he is quoted by Sunni scholars on history sometimes as being a reliable historian. quote taken from: “A critical study of the archaeology of the Jawf region of Saudi Arabia with additional material on its history and early Arabic epigraphy” [Durham University, 1988] by Khaleel Ibrahim Al-Muaikel, page 25
[8] Abu Ubaid al- Qasim Ibn Sallam’s (774 – 838) opinion on “saghir” – “saghirun” may be the closest meaning to its original word:
“Abu Ubayd said that about the words of the Exalted, ‘an yadin wa hum saghirin (readily, being brought low), there are three interpretations. Some of them say, ‘an yadin means cash, from hand to hand’; others say, ‘They should walk up with it (Jizya)’; while others say, ‘They should stand up and deliver it.'” (Kitab al-Amwaal by Abu Ubaid al- Qasim Ibn Sallam, page 18)
[9] Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya writes that the Prophet throughout his life only waged war with those who were hostile. The Prophet (p) was commanded by God to “avoid” and to leave alone those who sought peace:
“It has already been mentioned that the prophet began his mission without fighting or imposing the jizya. He remained as such for more than a decade while in Makka, he was then granted permission to wage war once he migrated to Al Madeena. Thereafter, HE WAS COMMANDED TO RETALIATE AND TO AVOID THOSE WHO WERE PEACEFUL. Once Baraa’a was revealed in the eighth year, he was commanded to fight Arabs who had not accepted Islaam AND HAD NOT ENGAGED IN A PEACE AGREEMENT. However, he was not commanded to impose the jizya.” (Zaad al-Ma’ad, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, page 717 – 718)

M

 

 

Advertisements

Tagged as: , , , , , ,

2 Responses »

  1. Reblogged this on Blogging Theology and commented:
    A must read!

  2. Another great article and response by brother Karim and DTT.

    Is it too much to ask for the critics of Islam, to at least be honest about facts? It seems that they cannot build a case against Islam without resorting to deceit, misportrayals, misinterpretations, cherry-picking, etc.

    The blatant deceit and dishonesty of many Christian apologists never ceases to amaze me. It is sad how they sell out their own moral values and principles and are so readily willing to sink to the lowest depths in order to unscrupulously spread so much lies, slander, confusion and misunderstanding about Islam – all in order to muddy the water in a last ditch effort to justify their own doctrines and beliefs, which were not even taught by Prophet Jesus himself.

    Many Christian apologists today operate on an inconsistent and unfair paradigm, which generally results in weakly based arguments which only highlight their own ignorance, double standards, disingenuous extreme bias and unwillingness to be honest and truthful. Furthermore, if these weak arguments are logically followed through, they often backfire, causing more harm to Christian theology and polemics than benefits.
    What an dishonest and untruthful act in betrayal of the honest truth as taught by the true Abrahamic faith tradition!! I think all decent and educated Christians should be ashamed of such sinful tactics which are used so often by their own co-religionist Christian apologetic polemicists today. All good and honest Christians and Christian leaders should find the courage to call these disingenuous apologists out on such tactics in defense of the honest truth. Otherwise such sinful acts will bring shame on the name of those good Christians whose silence often seems to agree with such shameful deeds.

    For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. ~ Romans 16:18

    “But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.” ~ 1 Tim 5:20

    “And, do not cloak (and confuse) the truth with falsehood. Do not suppress the truth knowingly. (The Noble Quran, 2:42)”

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Twitter

%d bloggers like this: