Muslims Killing Muslims, Why?

Pakistani Shia pilgrims killed in suicide bombing. Nineteen dead, according to officials, as killer smashes truck laden with explosives into Baluchistan bus bound for Iran.

A suicide bomber driving a vehicle packed with explosives rammed into a bus carrying Shia Muslim pilgrims in south-west Pakistan on Sunday, killing 19 people, a government official and witnesses said.

Earlier on Sunday, 21 tribal policemen believed to have been kidnapped by the Taliban were found shot dead in Pakistan’s troubled north-west tribal region, government officials said.

Pakistan has experienced a spike in killings over the past year by radical Sunni Muslims targeting Shias who they consider heretics. The violence has been especially pronounced in Baluchistan province, where the latest attack occurred.

In addition to the 19 people killed in the bombing in Baluchistan’s Mastung district, 25 others were wounded, many of them critically, said Tufail Ahmed, a local political official. The blast completely destroyed the bus that was hit and damaged a second bus carrying Shias that was close by.

A witness who was travelling in the second bus told Pakistan’s Geo TV the first bus contained over 40 pilgrims heading to neighbouring Iran, a popular religious tourism destination for Shias.

A second witness said the bomber rushed by in a truck, swerved in front of the first bus and braked suddenly. The bus slammed into the truck and then a big explosion occurred.

Shias make up around 15% of Pakistan’s 190 million people. They are scattered around the country but the province of Baluchistan has the largest community, mainly made up of ethnic Hazaras, easily identified by their facial features which resemble those of Central Asians.

The 21 tribal policemen who were shot dead were found by officials early on Sunday, in the Jabai area of Frontier Region Peshawar after being notified by one policeman who escaped, said Naveed Akbar Khan, a top political official in the area. Another policeman was found seriously wounded, said Khan.

The 23 policemen went missing before dawn on Thursday, when militants armed with rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons attacked two posts in FRP. Two policemen were also killed in the attacks.

Militants lined the policemen up on a cricket pitch late on Saturday night and gunned them down, said another local official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to talk to the media.

Also on Sunday, two Pakistani soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb in the North Waziristan tribal area, the main sanctuary for Taliban and al-Qaida militants in the country, security officials said.


29 thoughts on “Muslims Killing Muslims, Why?




    Umar stopped people from narrating Ahadith!!!

    The first thing which deserves our attention is that the three Caliphs, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, prohibited the writing and even the discussion of the traditions of the Prophet (P).

    Abu Bakr gathered the people during his Caliphate and said to them: “You relate traditions from the Prophet of God and differ about it. The people after you will differ even more, [therefore] do not relate anything from the Prophet. If anyone asks you, say: ‘Between us there is the book, so consider as lawful what is lawful in it, and prohibit what is forbidden in it'”. 1

    1. Al -Dhahabi, Tadhkira al – Huffaz, vol. 1, pg 2-3.

    Similarly, ‘Umar was another one who forbade the people from narrating traditions from the Prophet.

    Qarza b. K’ab said: “When ‘Umar b. al-Khattab sent us to Iraq, he walked with us and said: ‘Do you know why I followed you?’ They said: ‘To honour us’. He said: ‘Besides that, you are going to the villagers. The Qur’an reverberates in them like the reverberation of a bee. Do not occupy them with traditions. So make them busy and recite the Qur’an, and reduce the narrations from the Prophet and I am an associate to you [in this]'”.

    This narrator says: “I never narrated a tradition after ‘Umar’s admonition”. When he arrived in Iraq, the people hastened to him asking him about the hadith. Qarza said to them: “‘Umar prohibited me from that”.2

    2. Sunan Ibn Maja, vol. 1, pg 12, Sunam, al-Darimi vol.1 1/85, Dhahabi, Tadhkira al – Huffaz, vol. 1.

    Similarly, ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Awf said that ‘Umar b. al-Khattab gathered the companions from remote regions to forbid them from narrating traditions of the Prophet to the people. He said to them: “Stand by me, do not go away from me as long as I live”. They did not leave him until he died. 3
    3. Al -Hakim, Mustadrak, 1/110, Kanz al- Ummal, 5/239.

    Similarly, al-Khatib al-Baghdadi says, and [so does] al-Dhahabi in Tadhkira al-Huffaz, that ‘Umar b. al-Khattab imprisoned three companions in Medina. These were Abu Darda, Ibn Mas’ud and Abu Mas’ud al-Ansari due to their excessive narration of traditions. Furthermore, ‘Umar commanded the companions to bring the books of traditions at their disposal to him. They thought he wanted to organize them in a way so that there would be no differences between them. They brought their books, he burnt them all in the fire. 4

    4. Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, 5/140, al- Baghdadi, Taqdim al-ilm.

    Then ‘Uthman came after him. He continued the trend and notified all the people that:

    “It is not permitted for anyone to narrate a tradition which was not heard during the times of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar”. 5

    5. Commentary of Muntakhab Kanz al -Ummal, Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 4/64.

    After them came the time of Mu’awiya b. Abu Sufyan. When he attained the position of the Caliphate, he ascended the minbar and said:

    “O people, it is forbidden to speak about hadith from the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.), except those hadith which were mentioned during the Caliphate of ‘Umar”. 6, al-Khatib, Sharaf Ashab al -Hadith, pg 91.

    Certainly, there had to be a secret motive behind the proscription of traditions that were uttered by the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.), hadiths which did not agree with things that were happening at that time. Otherwise, why were the hadiths of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) forbidden for the entire length of this period, and were not permitted to be written except during the Caliphate of ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz (R)?

    We can therefore deduce, based on the events mentioned, especially bearing in mind the clear texts regarding the Caliphate which the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) had declared in the presence of the main witnesses, that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar prohibited the narration and transmission of hadith from the Prophet, fearing that those hadiths would spread to all regions, and even to the neighbouring villages. It would then become clear to the people that his Caliphate and the Caliphate of his companion was not [valid] according to the shari’a. Rather, it had been usurped from the divinely ordained Caliph, ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. We have discussed this topic and uncovered the truth in our book, “So that I may be with the Truthful ones”. Whoever wishes further confirmation [of this] can refer to it.

    The surprising thing regarding ‘Umar b. al-Khattab is his contradictory stance especially in things related to the Caliphate. While we find him to be the one who had urged the allegiance to Abu Bakr and [even] coerced the people to it – at the same time he declares that it was a sudden decision and that Allah had protected [the people] from it’s disasters. At another time, we find him choosing six people for the Caliphate saying:

    “If the bald one gets it (meaning ‘Ali b. Abi Talib), he will impose severity upon them”.

    Since he confessed that ‘Ali was the only person who could make the people steadfast, then why did he not appoint him and end the matter, thereby giving good advice to the umma of Muhammad? But we see him instead, after this, contradicting himself and preferring the opinion of ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Awf, then contradicting himself yet again saying:

    “Were Salim, the slave of Abu Hudhayfa, alive, I would have appointed him over you”. 7

    7. This Narration has been taken by Abu Hanifa as proof for the permissibility of the Caliphate of manumitted slaves. In doing so, he goes against a clear hadith of the Prophet(P) that the Caliphate is to be with the Quraysh only. Because of his position, the Turks espoused the madhab of Abu Hanifa when they grabbed the Caliphate, and gave him the title: “The Grand Imam”.

    More surprising than that was the issue of Abu Hafs. He forbade him to [transmit] hadith from the Prophet (S.A.W.), and confined the companions in Medina, forbidding them from leaving it. He also forbade the emissaries he sent to other regions to speak of the sunna of the Prophet (S.A.W.), and he [also] burnt the books that were in the hands of the companions. In these books were the hadiths of the Prophet (S.A.W.).

    Did ‘Umar b al-Khattab not understand that the sunna of the Prophet clarified the Qur’an? Or had he not read the words of Allah, the Glorified and Exalted:
    “And we have revealed the remembrance unto you so that you may explain to the people what has been sent down to them” (16:44).

    Or did he understand from the Qur’an something which the bearer of the message and the one to whom the Qur’an was revealed, did not understand?

    This is what some confused people have tried to do, claiming that the Qur’an on several occasions came to verify the opinions of ‘Umar and it opposed the views of the Prophet (S.A.W.). Grave indeed are the words that come out of their mouths, they do not understand.

    I was always perplexed when I read in al-Bukhari of ‘Umar’s refusal to accept ‘Ammar b. Yasir’s narration, especially regarding the Prophet’s teaching him how to do tayammum, just as I was surprised at ‘Ammar’s words:

    “If you wish, I shall not speak of it”, in fear of ‘Umar. This proves clearly that ‘Umar b. al-Khattab was severe on any one who narrated hadiths from the Prophet, and would harass him.

    If the companions amongst the Quraysh were afraid of the Caliph and would not leave Medina, and even those who did go out desisted from transmitting the Prophetic traditions, and then had their books, in which they had recorded hadiths, burnt, yet no one amongst them said anything, then what was the position of ‘Ammar b. Yasir, an absolute stranger, despised by the Quraysh for his stand with ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, and his love for him?

    • Hi Lucky Stain, Remember bombs did not exist during the time of Mohammed(pbuh)!

      But I can enlighten you from where these suicide bombers get their motivation from.

      First you must understand that there is a religion called Islam. And once one joins Islam then he/she finds a spiritual bond existing and that is known as Muslim Brotherhood. This Bond becomes a part and parcel of every Muslim in the world.

      Muslims unite in this bond in that they sympathize with each other in times of trouble and become joyous in time of boon.

      As all Humans are not equal some individuals become extremists when it comes to grievances, oppression, tyranny and killing of their fellow Muslims and family members, by the tyrant and unjust rulers of their land or usurping of their rights by the Israel and western powers, that even shipments of goods like medicine and food are cut off!!

      This is suppression, that brings about regression. Regression creates pressure which builds into aggression and turns to fundamentalism – moulding extremism that produces terrorists, as the final product, who are ruthless and merciless. This product of suppression in the first place has no more regard in care to human life and even God. They distort verses of the holy scriptures just to fulfill their agendas, even going to the extremes of killing themselves and doing so kill other innocent beings. But there is no other reason why extremists should kill their fellow believers save for the reason of fear and bias of flourishing of the other’s sect !! It is bad jealousy.

      To remove extremists first eradicate the cause of suppression and there would be no more terrorism!!


      • Holy War & Islam A “Fundamentalist” Islam? Conventional wisdom tries to split off “fundamentalist” Islam from Islam as a whole. The common view is that “fundamentalist” Islam is not really Islam, but an aberrant form that “hijacked” the true Islam. However, this kind of analysis does not work with Islam. Perhaps it works with Christianity: the exclusivism and intolerance of Christian fundamentalism bear little relationship to the actual teachings of Jesus. This is not so with “fundamentalist” Islam. The passionate zeal to conquer the infidel, the hallmark of Islamic “fundamentalists,” goes straight back to Muhammad. Here we must tread very carefully. There is no one form of Islam any more than there is just one form of Judaism, Christianity, or Buddhism. What we are involved in is not – or at least does not need to be – a war between Islam and Western civilization. And it is certainly not – or does not need to be – a war between Americans and Muslims. However, what the West is up against is not merely an aberrant or “fundamentalist” form of Islam of relatively recent vintage. What now confronts the West is an expression of Islamic values that is as old as Islam itself. Why is this important? People are still obsessively asking, “Why do they hate us?” Why do some of our enemies hate us so much that they would even resort to suicide to kill as many of us as they can? To the Western mind, this is unfathomable. And the Western mind is ethnocentric: it loves to believe that all minds think like the Western mind. So we in the West have found a solution we can live with: the belief that Islam is no different from Christianity or Judaism that we all share the same values and want the same things. We like to think that what is attacking us has nothing to do with Islam – that it is something foreign to Islam that has “hijacked” it. We say to ourselves: Islam is really an innocent faith perverted by people who would use it to redress political grievances. Since Islam itself supposedly has nothing to do with this conflict, we can disregard it to focus on the “root causes” of the violence. Therefore, to solve the problem of terrorism, we can ignore religion and respond to the terrorists’ grievances. We think it obvious that only a deep sense of desperation could drive a terrorist to commit suicide. And so, we conclude, we must alleviate his desperation, then hope he will revert to the “true” Islam, which of course poses no threat to the West. There is no separating terrorist Islam from Islam. The religiously inspired anti-Western hatred the terrorists proclaim is not different from the religiously inspired anti-Western hatred that appears in the government-controlled media of Arab as well as some other Muslim countries. There is not just one single form of Islam, but that does not mean the intolerant forms, more pervasive than we might wish to imagine, are not real Islam. They are genuine, and they won’t disappear even if the countries of the West change their foreign policies to placate them. Many writers point to Wahhabism as the origin of today’s militant Islam, with the implication that Islamic militancy is only about 250 years old. This does not explain the often equal virulence of Shi’ite Islam, which has nothing to do with Wahhabism. As for Wahhabism itself, it did not materialize from nowhere. It has roots in traditions and scholarship that are centuries old, including the great fourteenth-century scholar Ibn Taymiyya, and the Hanbali School of jurisprudence, which was founded in the ninth century. These in turn go back to traditions about Muhammad himself, the sunna, which includes sayings of and about the Prophet as well as the earliest biographies. This so-called “militant” Islam is as Islamic as any other form of Islam today. Since the leading centers of “militant” Islam are Saudi Arabia, the land of Islam’s origin and Islam’s holiest cities and the heart of Sunni Islam, and Iran, the heart of Shi’ite Islam, it hardly makes sense to say that these forms of Islam have “hijacked” the rest. One might just as well accuse the Pope of hijacking Catholicism. The Western mind, still brooding nervously over the questions “Why do they hate us?” “How could they do this?” does not sufficiently appreciate the depths to which religion can stir the passions over the course of a long history. Perhaps we can gain some insight by looking at Western religious history. The early Christian martyrs were also inspired by their faith to pursue death zealously. The difference is that early Christian tradition did not encourage martyrs to die by shedding the blood of nonbelievers. It was different with Islam. Yet in both cases, the passion of religion has been sufficient to make death seem preferable to life in this world. Seeds of Intolerance Here is an example of “militant” Islam. An Al Qaeda video claiming responsibility for the March, 2004 bombings in Madrid stated: You love life and we love death, which gives an example of what the Prophet Muhammad said. Is this far-fetched? An un-Islamic, alien distortion of the words of the Prophet? Here is what Muhammad said: By the Being in Whose Hand is my life, I love that I should be killed in the way of Allah. (Sahih Muslim, 20:4631) This statement of Muhammad is not unique. The earliest traditions contain many more like it. And as for its “context,” this quote comes from a chapter of the Hadith (teachings of Muhammad) entitled, “The Merit of Jihad and Campaigning in the Way of Allah.” It is all about jihad, whose original meaning really was “holy war.” Islam’s apologists love to accuse their critics of quoting passages out of context. Some defend Islam by comparing it to Christianity, which at times in history was even more brutal. Jihad in the Qur’an We begin our exploration with the Qur’an, even though it would be more logical to begin with the sirat, or early biographies of Muhammad, since these biographies supply the historical context of the Qur’an. We begin with the Qur’an because it is Islam’s most basic text and most frequently cited source. However, Muslims rightly caution us against quoting verses from the Qur’an out of context. Therefore we will not simply quote isolated verses but will comment on the context as we go along. Later sections on Muhammad’s life and teachings will supply further background. Approaching the Qur’an It is difficult for any non-Muslim to approach the Qur’an. It is written in a strange and mysterious language, and its organization is bewildering. The suras (or suwar, plural of sura, chapter) are ordered neither by chronology nor by topic, but by length, the longest ones first. The text also frequently alludes to events in the life of Muhammad that are not narrated; one must really know Muhammad’s biography before one studies the Qur’an. A non-Muslim also approaches the Qur’an “from the outside,” not having learned to regard it as a sacred text. And so non-Muslims and Muslims will see this text very differently. Muslims derive inspiration from it and treat it with reverence. Non-Muslims also should treat it with respect, but may have criticisms coming from their experience of how Muslims have used the Qur’an and the role this text has played in history. Jihad and the Qur’an Since our topic is jihad, let us begin by looking at the meaning of the word jihad itself. It is usually translated “holy war,” and is often applied that way, but that is not its literal meaning. Literally, jihad means “striving.” But what kind of striving is it? The following verses from the Qur’an use different forms of this word: O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, – an evil refuge indeed. (9:73, 66:9) Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness. (25:52) And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allah or rejects the Truth when it reaches him? Is there not a home in Hell for those who reject Faith? And those who strive in Our (cause), – We will certainly guide them to our Paths: For verily Allah is with those who do right. (29:68-69) In each case this “striving” (jihad), a Muslim’s duty, occurs in the context of opposing, or striving against, the unbeliever. The striving of jihad is primarily the striving to spread Islam and Islamic rule. What forms is this striving to take? Muhammad himself was a bandit/warrior, and there is no doubt that at least one significant form of this striving is physical combat. Some apologists for Islam make a distinction between a “greater” and a “lesser” jihad, the former consisting of a nonviolent spiritual struggle for virtue, while only the latter refers to making war. As we shall see, in actual practice this distinction has hardly any relevance, and in any case it is unlikely that Muhammad himself ever made such a distinction. In one hadith Muhammad speaks of the greater vs. the lesser jihad, but most authorities consider it spurious and a forgery . And even if it were only a “lesser” jihad, military jihad would still be jihad and thus a duty and a virtue. Beyond Self-Defense Jihad very frequently refers to combat. That is undeniable. The Qur’an makes copious references to fighting in the cause of faith. The question, however, is whether this fighting is sanctioned only for the purpose of self-defense. The Qur’an itself seems to be of two minds on this matter. Some critics of Islam carelessly quote the following verse to illustrate Islam’s aggressiveness: And slay them wherever ye catch them…. (2:191) However, the full quotation is: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (2:190-192) From the context it would sound, at least in this passage, that the Qur’an prescribes fighting only in self-defense. However, this is not its only word on the subject. Some verses seem to prescribe fighting without qualification, except that the enemy be a nonbeliever: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. (2:216) Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do. (8:38-39) O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding. For the present, Allah hath lightened your (task), for He knoweth that there is a weak spot in you: But (even so), if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred, and if a thousand, they will vanquish two thousand, with the leave of Allah: for Allah is with those who patiently persevere. It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land [Pickthal: “until he hath made slaughter in the land”]. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise. (8:65-67) But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); 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. (9:5 [often called the “sword verse”]) Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29) O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about [Pickthal and others: “who are near to you”], and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him. (9:123) Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah, – He will never let their deeds be lost. (47:4) We will have occasion to return to some of these verses later, since they have played a significant role in Muslim history and have been used by Muslims to justify “holy war,” even when not in the cause of self-defense. Taking all these references together, it is clear that unbelief alone can serve as reason for the faithful to attack. Other verses in Sura 47, as well as 48:17, provide the basis for the belief that those who die in jihad go immediately to paradise. The “Sword Verse” in Context Sura 8 was received after the Battle of Badr, which was supposed to be a raid by Muhammad on a Meccan caravan but escalated into a full-scale clash between Muhammad and the pagan Meccans. This battle is legendary in the history of Islam and often taken as a prototype for holy war against nonbelievers in general. Although it was received somewhat later, Sura 9 is traditionally considered an extension of sura 8; it is the only sura not separated from its predecessor by the bismillah formula (“In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate”). Together these suras describe Islam’s attitude toward confronting nonbelievers. Perhaps the most infamous of these verses is the “sword verse,” “slay them wherever ye find them” (9:5). Some commentators point out that this verse applied only to nonbelievers who broke treaties with the Muslims, since verse 4 states that treaties with nonbelievers who have not broken them must be honored. However, once “the end of their term” (v. 4) has been reached, the Muslims are free to attack. Muhammad’s intention was always to convert the Arabian Peninsula to Islam, whether by forceful or peaceful means. He made treaties to strengthen his position and to prepare for future action, not to achieve a state of permanent coexistence. He made the famous Treaty of Hudaybiyya at a time when he was militarily weak, then broke it on a pretext after he became stronger. (The story is complicated, but it started when a Meccan tribe allied with Muhammad killed a member of another tribe, which retaliated, allowing Muhammad to exploit the situation.) The verses following the “sword verse” clarity its meaning as well as Muhammad’s attitude toward nonbelievers: In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds. But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity, – they are your brethren in Faith. (9:10-11) These “regular prayers” are the salat, the prayers Muslims recite five times a day, and can only be prayers to Allah. These pagans, whom Muslims are to treat kindly, have become “brethren in faith” – they have ceased to be pagans. Verse 9:5 uses the same language: if the pagans “repent,” establish regular prayers (salat) and adopt the practices of Islam, they are no longer to be treated as enemies. The ultimate goal is the conversion of pagans to Islam, through whatever means, peaceful or aggressive. The other verses from suras 8 and 9 do not even mention treaties as a mitigating factor. The effect of treaties is at best temporary. The only thing that truly saves an unbeliever is to “desist from unbelief” (8:38). This is what both the textual and historical context of these verses really have to tell us. There will be more to say about context later. It is an important issue, and one often misunderstood. Earlier vs. Later Suras It is necessary to keep in mind when these suras encouraging violence were written. All of the suras quoted above except for 25 and 29, which come from Mecca, are later and come from the period in Medina. Because of his preaching against the polytheism and commercialism of the pagan leaders of Mecca, Muhammad faced much opposition there. He accepted an invitation from the tribes of the city of Yathrib, who needed someone capable and impartial to arbitrate the tribal disputes that were ruining the city’s economy. And so in 622 Muhammad went to Yathrib (later called Medina) and eventually became its ruler. This event is significant in Muslim history and is called the hijra (Latinized form: hegira), meaning “emigration,” “separation,” or “breaking of relations,” and it marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. In Medina Muhammad became a true military leader, and the Medinan suras reflect this. They tend to be much more belligerent. Since the Meccan suras are generally shorter, they are placed later in the Qur’an, because the Qur’an is organized neither chronologically nor topically but in order of the length of the suras, from longest to shortest. This tends to confuse non-Muslims who try to understand the Qur’an as a whole. But it means that the more hostile Medinan suras are given prominence in two senses. First, they appear before the others. And second, according to Islamic doctrine there is a principle called naskh, “abrogation” or “substitution,” through which those suras that come chronologically later (the Medinan suras) can replace the earlier (Meccan) ones whenever the two are in conflict. This principle has a basis in the Qur’an itself: None of our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? (2:106) When We substitute one revelation for another, – and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), – they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not. (16:101) In other words, according to this interpretation, Allah may choose to modify or replace a former revelation with a later one. This principle gives special status to the later suras, which reflect Muhammad’s hostility towards his enemies and especially towards Jews and Christians, since by that time it became clear they rejected his message and his status as a prophet. In his tafsir (commentary) the renowned 14th-century Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir quotes an earlier authority who maintains that the “sword verse” (9:5) “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.” His contemporary Ibn Juzayy supported this view, maintaining that this verse is significant in “abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur’an”. Clearly this undermines the view of those who try to defend this verse by maintaining it does not apply to treaties. (It should be noted that the principle of abrogation is not universally accepted. Some authorities appeal to suras 4:82 and 6:34 in claiming that the Qur’an is perfect, universally valid, and contains no contradictions.) An Important Word About Context Muslims often accuse Islam’s critics of quoting verses from the Qur’an out of context, thus unfairly portraying Islam as a violent religion. As we have seen, it can be dangerous to quote verses of the Qur’an in isolation, without examining the surrounding text. Concerning the historical context, the Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad gradually, different suras unfolding in response to different historical situations. Some of these pronouncements, especially those from the Medinan period, came to Muhammad during or after battle; as we have noted, sura 8 was revealed after the famous battle of Badr. However, these verses are presented in the Qur’an apart from this history. The Qur’an itself takes the experience of Muhammad out of its original setting and makes it absolute and universal truth. (This distinguishes the Qur’an from the Bible, which evolved over many years and in which the historical context is plainly evident. Nevertheless, Islam’s apologists often draw faulty comparisons between these two scriptures.) What Muhammad said and did during the specific situations he encountered is considered a model for the conduct of Muslims in every age, and for that reason alone the meaning of the Qur’an’s verses cannot be restricted to the times and places in which they were received. The Qur’an is understood to be the timeless word of God, given at one time for every time and for every place. While the Qur’an may have originated in the experience of Muhammad, it does not read like history, as the Bible does, but like a series of general pronouncements intended for individual and communal instruction and guidance. This is certainly how Muslims have applied the Qur’an over the centuries. There has been much discussion and dispute among Islamic scholars as to which verses (usually later, Medinan ones) abrogate others (usually earlier, Meccan ones), but the message itself is considered timeless and not limited to specific social conditions or historical situations. Many verses in the Qur’an and teachings in the Hadith speak very disparagingly of Christians and especially of Jews. For the most part, when Muslims hear these verses chanted or these teachings expounded in Friday sermons, they are not encouraged to believe that these words apply only to the Jewish tribes in Medina during the lifetime of Muhammad. On the contrary, such verses and teachings are often applied to Jews living today. No less than an Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca explicitly applies Qur’an 5:60 to today’s Jews and calls them “apes and pigs” . This projection of Muhammad’s context onto our own is far from unique. Islam as it has evolved is a religion that decontextualizes history. Muslims frequently ignore the historical context when applying their own scriptures, and so they have no cause for complaint when others do likewise. And as we shall see below, restoring the textual context to some verses often makes the Qur’an seem even more harsh and intolerant. The section on Shari’a will provide further examples of how Muslims themselves – and not just so-called “extremists” but established authorities – have always quoted verses from the Qur’an apart from their historical context and have applied them to contemporary issues. The many verses quoted in this section have been used throughout history by Muslims to justify their conquests. They have been used by Islamic scholars and jurists precisely the way Islam’s apologists admonish non-Muslims not to use them. They have been used to justify violent jihad. Intolerance in the Qur’an Since Muhammad was involved in many battles, the Qur’an has much to do with fighting. But far more numerous than verses encouraging Muslims to fight are verses expressing religious intolerance and God’s hatred and rejection of the nonbeliever. While the later suras tend to be more violent, religious intolerance is sprinkled throughout the Qur’an. This theme sounds like a recurrent drumbeat throughout the text, and there is no point in trying to list all the verses that express it. They overwhelm even those few verses (and we shall examine the most well known) that appear to promote tolerance. Here are just a few of the intolerant ones – this list is not even close to exhaustive. (Note: the word that Yusuf ‘Ali consistently translates as “those who reject faith” [kafaru] is translated by most others as “those who disbelieve.”) Meccan suras: Those who reject Our signs, We shall gradually visit with punishment, in ways they perceive not. (7:182) Say, “The truth is from your Lord”: Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it): for the wrong-doers We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on! (18:29) But those who reject (Allah) [Pickthal and others: “disbelieve”] – for them will be the Fire of Hell: No term shall be determined for them, so they should die, nor shall its Penalty be lightened for them. Thus do We reward every ungrateful one! (35:36) Seest thou not those that dispute concerning the Signs of Allah? How are they turned away (from Reality)? – Those who reject the Book and the (revelations) with which We sent our messengers: but soon shall they know, – When the yokes (shall be) round their necks, and the chains; they shall be dragged along – In the boiling fetid fluid: then in the Fire shall they be burned. (40:69-72) But We will certainly give the Unbelievers a taste of a severe Penalty, and We will requite them for the worst of their deeds. Such is the requital of the enemies of Allah,- the Fire: therein will be for them the Eternal Home: a (fit) requital, for that they were wont to reject Our Signs. (41:27-28) For those who reject [Pickthal: “disbelieve”] their Lord (and Cherisher) is the Penalty of Hell: and evil is (such) destination. (67:6) Then leave Me alone with such as reject this Message: by degrees shall We punish them from directions they perceive not. (68:44) Verily, We have warned you of a Penalty near, the Day when man will see (the deeds) which his hands have sent forth, and the Unbeliever will say, “Woe unto me! Would that I were (mere) dust!” (78:040) What then is the matter with them, that they believe not? And when the Qur’an is read to them, they fall not prostrate, but on the contrary the Unbelievers reject (it). But Allah has full knowledge of what they secrete (in their breasts). So announce to them a Penalty Grievous, except to those who believe and work righteous deeds: for them is a Reward that will never fail. (84:20-25) But if any turn away and reject Allah, [Pickthal: “But whoso is averse and disbelieveth”] – Allah will punish him with a mighty Punishment. (88: 23-24) Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (98:6) Medinan suras: But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein. (2:39) Miserable is the price for which they have sold their souls, in that they deny (the revelation) which Allah has sent down, in insolent envy that Allah of His Grace should send it to any of His servants He pleases: Thus have they drawn on themselves Wrath upon Wrath. And humiliating is the punishment of those who reject Faith. (2:90) (Yea), and such as reject Faith, – for a while will I grant them their pleasure, but will soon drive them to the torment of Fire, – an evil destination (indeed)! (2:126) Those who reject Faith, and die rejecting, – on them is Allah’s curse, and the curse of angels, and of all mankind. They will abide therein: Their penalty will not be lightened, nor will respite be their (lot). (2:161-162) Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever). (2:257) Those who reject Faith, – neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They are themselves but fuel for the Fire. (3:10) Say to those who reject Faith: “Soon will ye be vanquished and gathered together to Hell, – an evil bed indeed (to lie on)! (3:12) As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help. (3:56) If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good). (3:85) As to those who reject Faith, and die rejecting [Pickthal: “those who disbelieve, and die in disbelief”], – never would be accepted from any such as much gold as the earth contains, though they should offer it for ransom. For such is (in store) a penalty grievous, and they will find no helpers. (3:91) Those who reject Faith, – neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They will be companions of the Fire, -dwelling therein (for ever). (3:116) Fear the Fire, which is prepared for those who reject Faith [Pickthal: “disbelievers”]. (3:131) Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (4:56) Those who reject faith and deny our signs [Pickthal: “And they who disbelieve and deny Our revelations”] will be companions of Hell-fire. (5:10) As to those who reject Faith, – if they had everything on earth, and twice repeated, to give as ransom for the penalty of the Day of Judgment, it would never be accepted of them, theirs would be a grievous penalty. (5:36) But those who reject Faith and belie our Signs, – they shall be companions of Hell-fire. (5:86) And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage, – that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith [Pickthal and others: “disbelieve”]. (9:3) And for those who reject Faith and deny our Signs, there will be a humiliating Punishment. (22:57) And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire! (48:13) And those who believe in Allah and His messengers – they are the Sincere (lovers of Truth), and the witnesses (who testify), in the eyes of their Lord: They shall have their Reward and their Light. But those who reject Allah and deny Our Signs, – they are the Companions of Hell-Fire. (57:19) But those who reject Faith and treat Our Signs as falsehoods, they will be Companions of the Fire, to dwell therein for aye: and evil is that Goal. (64:10) Allah’s uncompromising rejection of the nonbeliever is spread throughout the Qur’an, which without all these references to it would become unrecognizable. A Tolerant Side of the Qur’an? The verses in the Qur’an expressing hatred and rejection of the nonbeliever far outnumber those suggesting anything else. Moreover, even those few supposedly tolerant verses seem to mean something different when examined closely. It sometimes seems like giving with one hand and taking back with the other. Let us consider the examples cited most frequently. Following is Sura 109 in full: Say: O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (109:1-6) This is one of the earliest Meccan suras. It is nevertheless often quoted as proof of Islamic religious tolerance. However, Syed Abu-Ala’ Maududi, an early twentieth century Islamic scholar and exegete well known in the Muslim world, points out (as do many others) that this sura refers to a dispute between Muhammad and the pagan leaders of Mecca. According to tradition these pagan leaders sought to strike a peace agreement, by which Muhammad would accept their gods and they would accept Allah in return. Thus the intention of this sura is not to proclaim tolerance but to reject any commonality between Islam and paganism. As Maududi states, If the Surah is read with this background in mind, one finds that it was not revealed to preach religious tolerance as some people of today seem to think, but it was revealed in order to exonerate the Muslims from the disbelievers religion, their rites of worship, and their gods, and to express their total disgust and unconcern with them and to tell them that Islam and kufr (unbelief) had nothing in common and there was no possibility of their being combined and mixed into one entity. Although it was addressed in the beginning to the disbelieving Quraish in response to their proposals of compromise, yet it is not confined to them only, but having made it a part of the Quran, Allah gave the Muslims the eternal teaching that they should exonerate themselves by word and deed from the creed of kufr wherever and in whatever form it be, and should declare without any reservation that they cannot make any compromise with the disbelievers in the matter of Faith. Other verses that seem to preach tolerance carry a hidden threat: So leave them alone until they encounter that Day of theirs, wherein they shall (perforce) swoon (with terror). (52:45) And have patience with what they say, and leave them with noble (dignity). And leave Me (alone to deal with) those in possession of the good things of life, who (yet) deny the Truth; and bear with them for a little while. (73:10-11) In other words: Don’t worry about the nonbelievers, Allah will deal with them in the afterlife. And as we have seen, the Qur’an is full of threats about the terrible fate awaiting nonbelievers there. One very well-known verse used to prove tolerance in the Qur’an must be mentioned: Let there be no compulsion in religion. (2:256) If we see how these words were applied in history, it becomes apparent that “no compulsion” is not the same as tolerance. “No compulsion” simply means no forced conversion. Muslim conquerors did not always force their subjects to convert upon pain of death (although at times they did, and as we shall see in the next section, the Hadith tradition contains many exhortations to spread the faith by force, regardless of what this verse from the Qur’an may have intended). The goal of jihad was to bring as much of the world as possible under Muslim rule. Conversion to Islam was one option open to the conquered, but not the only one. Most often their choice was one of three: conversion, subjugation, or death. This is in line with both 9:5 and 9:29 quoted above: Muslims are commanded to fight nonbelievers, but not necessarily to convert them. If the nonbelievers do embrace Islam, they will be treated with leniency, but if they refuse, then the best they can hope for is life as humiliated, second-class citizens, who by law must “feel themselves subdued” (9:29). It is true that at certain times some non-Muslim groups living under Muslim domination, notably Jews and Christians, were given the status of “protected minorities” and allowed within strict limits to practice their religions. Nevertheless, they were still treated as conquered people with an inferior status. There may not always have been “compulsion in religion” in the sense that these Jews and Christians were not forced to convert, but there certainly was compulsion in civil and human rights. Since we are addressing the objections of those who insist that verses of the Qur’an always be quoted in context, let us now supply the context of this verse (which those who use this verse to claim tolerance never do themselves): Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever). (2:256-257) In other words: There is no need to force people to change the error of their ways. Allah will take care of it. Allah will protect the faithful, but the nonbelievers, who are evil, will spend an eternity in hell. Those who wish to use 2:256 to demonstrate the tolerance of the Qur’an would be well advised to think twice. Another verse very often quoted to prove tolerance in the Qur’an is this one: Those who believe (in the Qur’an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians, – any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, – on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (5:69) However, once again those who quote this verse never quote it in context. They habitually fail to mention the verses that occur immediately after: We took the covenant of the Children of Israel and sent them messengers, every time, there came to them a messenger with what they themselves desired not – some (of these) they called impostors, and some they (go so far as to) slay. They thought there would be no trial (or punishment); so they became blind and deaf; yet Allah (in mercy) turned to them; yet again many of them became blind and deaf. But Allah sees well all that they do. (5:70-71) They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the son of Mary.” But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever joins other gods with Allah, Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. Why turn they not to Allah, and seek His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (5:72-74) But those who reject Faith and belie our Signs, – they shall be companions of Hell-fire. (5:86) “On them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”? How does this square with the dire threats and punishments that immediately follow? There is only one way. When 5:69 says “Those who believe,” clearly it means those who believe in Islam, as Yusuf ‘Ali corroborates by inserting the words “in the Qur’an.” Verse 5:69 therefore applies only to converts to Islam. The rest will meet the terrible retribution that Allah has in store for all nonbelievers. Finally, there is another very famous verse, also from sura 5, supposedly showing respect in the Qur’an for all human life: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. (5:32) But here is the passage with the surrounding text: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter. (5:32-33) Once again, a seemingly benign passage is followed by the threat of extreme punishment. Ibn Warraq comments: “The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. ‘Behave, or else’ is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated, and banished!” Also note that this passage carries an escape clause: except “for spreading mischief in the land.” Life is sacred, but not the lives of those who “spread mischief.” Who decides what is “mischief”? “Mischief” can mean just about anything, including preaching or publicly practicing a religion other than Islam. Yes, it is important to keep context in mind when quoting the Qur’an, but that applies equally to Islam’s apologists as to its critics. Moreover, contemporary preachers, not just Al Qaeda extremists but those officially sanctioned by the Palestinian Authority or Saudi Government, routinely lift parts of the Qur’an and Hadith from their historical context and apply them to present situations, often in ways expressing intolerance and hostility toward non-Muslims. This is how the Qur’an has been and often still is used in official circles. It is therefore disingenuous for Muslims to complain that non-Muslims ignore the historical context when criticizing the Qur’an. What really matters most is the role the Qur’an has played and continues to play in Muslim history. Those who insist on supplying the full context of every verse will often not be pleased with the results: when the few “tolerant” verses in the Qur’an are closely examined, they turn out to be something very much other than what they seem. And even these verses are vastly outnumbered by those expressing intolerance and condemnation openly and without pretense. In conclusion, the Qur’an does not preach religious tolerance. It is shot through with statements condemning any faith other than Islam, and condemning those who adhere to such faiths. Occasionally there are even exhortations to Muslims to fight nonbelievers, sometimes in self-defense, and other times to spread the faith. The continual affirmation of Allah’s rejection of other faiths and the people who practice them has encouraged religious intolerance throughout the centuries. This is only natural, if one takes the Qur’an as sacred scripture: to emulate God, one must love what God loves and hate what God hates, and if God hates people who believe differently, then it is good for the believers to hate them too. While non-Muslims often treat the Qur’an as if it were the only Islamic text, the literature of Islam is vast and spans many centuries. Next to the Qur’an in importance is the Hadith, which refers to collections of traditions about what Muhammad said, what he taught, and what he did. These collections are also called Sunna or “tradition”; hence the term Sunni Muslims, or “traditional” Muslims. Opposed to them are the Shi’ites, who broke away originally because of a dispute over succession to the caliphate, and who do not grant the same authority to the Hadith. (The proportion of Sunni Muslims to Shi’ites is roughly 85% – 15%.) Muslims naturally felt a need to preserve traditions about the Prophet from the time of the earliest witnesses. However, over the years since Muhammad’s death some of these traditions became embellished and others were fabricated. In the ninth century a number of Islamic scholars undertook the task of sifting the genuine traditions from the spurious and of gathering the former in written collections. In Sunni Islam six of these collections in particular are considered sahih (“reliable”). These sahih sittah(“reliable collections”) are: Sahih Bukhari, compiled by the Imam Muhammad ibn-Ismail al-Bukhari (810-870). Sahih Muslim, compiled by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri (821-975). Sunan Abu Dawud, compiled by Abu Dawud as-Sijistani (d. 888). Sunan ibn Majah, compiled by Muhammad ibn Majah (d. 896). Sunan At-Tirmidhi, compiled by Abi ‘Eesaa Muhammad At-Tirmidhi (824-893). Sunan An-Nasai, compiled by Ahmad ibn Shu’ayb an-Nasai (d. 915). All these collections of hadith are highly respected in the Sunni tradition, but the first two even more than the others, and so they are given the additional specific designation of sahih. And of those two, Sahih Bukhari is considered the most important and most reliable. Those ahadith occurring in both the Bukhari and Muslim collections have the highest status of all. Only One Jihad These compilations of hadith are voluminous, and they have a lot to say about jihad. However, before going to these classic collections, we should begin by looking at one hadith that is very often quoted to demonstrate a nonviolent meaning of jihad: Upon his return from battle Muhammad said, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad (i.e. the struggle against the evil of one’s soul).” This is very often cited as a proof-text for the “real” meaning of jihad being inward, spiritual struggle. But there are two problems: 1. Even a “lesser” jihad is still jihad and thus a duty and a virtue. 2. Muhammad never made such a statement. The hadith in which Muhammad is said to speak of “greater” vs. “lesser” jihad is of doubtful authenticity. It does not appear in any of the six collections of the sahih sittah.In fact, a number of scholars maintain that this hadith is a forgery. One scholar analyzes this hadith and considers a number of factors, such as chain of transmission and other more reliable, contradictory ahadith. He quotes one authority: “There is a Hadith related by a group of people which states that the Prophet [peace be upon him] said after the battle of Tabuk: ‘We have returned from Jihad Asghar [lesser jihad] to Jihad Akbar [greater jihad].’ This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind.” And so after a meticulous examination of sources the article comes to a decision: On the basis of the above statements we can conclude by saying, that the evidence used as proof or the basis for establishing that Jihad against disbelievers on the battlefield is Jihad Asghar [lesser jihad] and Jihad against the desires and Shaitaan [Satan, the devil] is Jihad Akbar [greater jihad], are weak if not false Hadith. One of the counter-hadith with a better chain of transmission (and the author quotes others as well) goes like this: A man asked [the Prophet]: “…and what is Jihad?” He [peace be upon him] replied: “You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield).” He asked again: “What kind of Jihad is the highest?” He [peace be upon him] replied: “The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood.” This seems to leave little doubt as to how Muhammad understood jihad. But let us not make the case on just one example. There are many ahadith on jihad, and they make its meaning quite clear. First and foremost, jihad meant combat on the battlefield, and specifically against non-Muslims. Jihad as Fighting the Nonbeliever The following sequence of ahadith will clarify this. Many of these are extremely well attested, occurring multiple times in the most trusted collections, the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. I will cite some of these multiple attestations just to show the high status of these ahadith. (The numbering of ahadith may vary in different editions. In all of the following quotations I have used the Hadith database of the Muslim Students’ Association of the University of Southern California . For purposes of readability I do not quote in full the isnad (chain of attribution) of each hadith, but these are considered important to establishing authenticity and are included in the original sources.) Reading through the hadith on the subject of jihad, what we do not find is an exclusive emphasis on self-defense or on struggling with one’s desires. Jihad is physical combat, not just for self-defense but for the purpose of spreading Islam, and there is no greater virtue: I asked the Prophet, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and to fight for His Cause.” (Sahih Bukhari, 3:46:694, Sahih Muslim, 1:149) It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa’id Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said (to him): Abu Sa’id, whoever cheerfully accepts Allah as his Lord, Islam as his religion and Muhammad as his Apostle is necessarily entitled to enter Paradise. He (Abu Sa’id) wondered at it and said: Messenger of Allah, repeat it for me. He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa’id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah! (Sahih Muslim, 20:4645) The true purpose of jihad, to spread the Muslim faith, is spelled out explicitly: Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.” (Sahih Bukhari, 1:2:24 [see also 4:52:196]) It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah. (Sahih Muslim, 1:31 [see also 1:130, 1:32, 1:33]) The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have. (Sunan Abu Dawud, 14:2635) A man came to the Prophet and asked, “A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah’s Cause?” The Prophet said, “He who fights that Allah’s Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah’s Cause.” (Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:65 [see also 9:93:550 and Sahih Muslim, 20:4684, 20:4685, 20:4686, 20:4687]) It is perhaps significant that those who never tire of quoting the Qur’an on “There is no compulsion in religion” (see previous section) also never mention these ahadith. The rewards of fighting in jihad are tremendous, not to be compared with anything else: The Prophet said, “A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah’s Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it.” (Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:50 [see also 4:52:51, 4:52:52, and Sahih Muslim, 20:4643]) Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah guarantees him who strives in His Cause and whose motivation for going out is nothing but Jihad in His Cause and belief in His Word, that He will admit him into Paradise (if martyred) or bring him back to his dwelling place, whence he has come out, with what he gains of reward and booty.” (Sahih Bukhari, 4:53:352 [see also 9:93:549, 9:93:555, and 1:2:35 which adds: “…and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah’s cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause.”]) It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira who said: Allah has undertaken to provide for one who leaves his home (only) to fight for His cause and to affirm the truth of His word; Allah will either admit him to Paradise or will bring him back home from where he had come out, with his reward and booty. (Sahih Muslim, 20:4628) Many ahadith tell us that the surest way to Paradise is to fight in jihad. Here are just a couple more: Allah’s Apostle said, “Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.” (Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:73 [see also 4:52:210, and Sahih Muslim, 20:4681]) It has been reported on the authority of Jabir that a man said: Messenger of Allah, where shall I be if I am killed? He replied: In Paradise. The man threw away the dates he had in his hand and fought until he was killed (i.e. he did not wait until he could finish the dates). (Sahih Muslim, 20:4678) The High Value of Martyrdom This elevation of jihad to the highest of virtues makes martyrdom something especially to be prized. There are many, many ahadith that extol and encourage martyrdom. It has been narrated on the authority of Masruq Who said: We asked ‘Abdullah about the Qur’anic verse: “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they are alive, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord” (Qur’an 3:169). He said: We asked the meaning of the verse (from the Holy Prophet) who said: The souls of the martyrs live in the bodies of green birds who have their nests in chandeliers hung from the throne of the Almighty. They eat the fruits of Paradise from wherever they like and then nestle in these chandeliers. (Sahih Muslim, 20:4651) There is of course the very celebrated tradition that martyrs from jihad go immediately to Paradise where they are rewarded with 72 virgins. The following verses in the Qur’an provide the foundation, although the number of virgins is not specified: Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah, – whether he is slain or gets victory – Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value). (4:74) As to the Righteous (they will be) in a position of Security, among Gardens and Springs; dressed in fine silk and in rich brocade, they will face each other; So; and We shall join them to Companions with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes. (44:51-54) As to the Righteous, they will be in Gardens, and in Happiness, – Enjoying the (Bliss) which their Lord hath bestowed on them, and their Lord shall deliver them from the Penalty of the Fire. (To them will be said:) “Eat and drink ye, with profit and health, because of your (good) deeds.” They will recline (with ease) on Thrones (of dignity) arranged in ranks; and We shall join them to Companions, with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes. (52:17-20) They will recline on Carpets, whose inner linings will be of rich brocade: the Fruit of the Gardens will be near (and easy of reach). Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched. (55:54-59 [see also 55:70-74]) And on Thrones (of Dignity), raised high. We have created (their Companions) of special creation. And made them virgin – pure (and undefiled), – Beloved (by nature), equal in age, – For the Companions of the Right Hand. (56:34-38) Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfilment of (the heart’s) desires; Gardens enclosed, and grapevines; And voluptuous women of equal age; And a cup full (to the brim). (78:31-34) And so from the Qur’an itself we see that sex is a reward for the faithful in Paradise. These “companions” are the houris of renown, beautiful young maidens. They will even be virgins, “whom no man or Jinn before them has touched.” We get the number 72 by way of hadith. In the Sunan At-Tirmidhi, which is one of the six basic collections, we find the following (5): The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: “The smallest reward for the people of Paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana’a [Yemen]” (Sunan At-Tirmidhi, 4:21:2687) There has been some debate on whether only martyrs get the 72 virgins or whether everyone [male] in Paradise gets them. However, the tradition of the virgins has been used often and effectively as an inducement to martyrdom. Martyrdom is so highly valued that the truly devoted Muslim would wish to return to earth many times in order to repeat the experience. The Prophet said, “Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah’s Cause).” (Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:53) The Prophet said, “By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya’ (army-unit) setting out in Allah’s Cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred. (Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:54) The Prophet said, “Nobody who enters Paradise likes to go back to the world even if he got everything on the earth, except a Mujahid who wishes to return to the world so that he may be martyred ten times because of the dignity he receives (from Allah).” Narrated Al-Mughira bin Shu’ba: Our Prophet told us about the message of our Lord that “Whoever amongst us is killed will go to Paradise.” Umar asked the Prophet, “Is it not true that our men who are killed will go to Paradise and their’s (i.e. those of the Pagans) will go to the (Hell) fire?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” (Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:72 [see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4635) It is praiseworthy both to seek death as a martyr and to love it: Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone fights in Allah’s path as long as the time between two milkings of a she-camel, Paradise will be assured for him. If anyone sincerely asks Allah for being killed and then dies or is killed, there will be a reward of a martyr for him. (Sunan Abu Dawud, 14:2535) It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say:… “By the Being in Whose Hand is my life, I love that I should be killed in the way of Allah; then I should be brought back to life and be killed again in His way.” (Sahih Muslim, 20:4631 [see also 20:4626]) Indeed, not to desire death in battle against the infidel is considered shameful: It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite. (Sahih Muslim, 20:4696)
        • I give a shit about your concerns, and see if you find out, asshole!

          And that it was not a whore ….. when you gonna Islam is that a good person should not be no.

          No good Muslim or Muslim, these also are even more stupid they do not rebel against abject religion that condemns them to be slaves of man, to be battered and discriminated.

          And anyway, if not fornicate with your mother, your sister or do you settle for an animal, a camel, a sheep, a goat maybe …

          Muslim depravity, as the son of your prophet whore, pure sexual aberration.

          • Plum, I’ve told you a thousand times not to talk to me or the horned lousy father, nor the fucking sickening of your dead mother and the rest of your fucking dead.

            I’m not interested.

          • Ram of the Rocks, did your mum teach you that dirty stuff??

            Engage in proper dialogue after you get your treatment as there is no point of abusing a truly sick person!

            Very perplexed

          • Ram Rock Dude! you are wasting your time. Muslims don’t do any work, they only kill others. (Saudi Barbaria is among World’s top laziest countries. 69% inactive according to Forbes magazine. Kubait is 65% inactive & United Barbarian Emirates is 63%. Google out Top laziest countries to know more.) You will be happy to know that 7 out of TOP 11 corrupt nations are run by muslims. This implies that Islam is mother of corruption as well.

            That plum eats Satan’s piss and sits on his stool before replying to you and hence thinks exactly like Satan. All muslims emulate Satan & hence keep on killing. We cannot do anything about it. He is NOT real problem. Islam taught terrorism as ordered by:

            (Satan’s) Piss be unto him. = MOHAMMAD (pbuh).

            World has seen only 1 vampire and his name is mentioned above. Next time, when you encounter Plum, tell him to hide his face in Satan’s stool. His cradle is situated there

            Regarding his mother, I too asked him to tell me consequences of her rape. Instead of replying logically, he ended up using Al Taqiyya. That’s why, I stopped replying to that Satan’s follower.

            Islam is terrorism. Another proof:

            But, please don’t involve his mother in all this. She was raped too much that she committed suicide in 1979. Plum considers that those rapists are his fathers. Since, she was raped by muslims, she won’t get justice in shariah. Let us mourn her suicide.

            We can modify dirty Quran and follow it. Example: after modification:

            Quran 3:19 – Only religion in eye of devil is Islam.

            Quran 98:6 – Beware of muslims. They are devils in disguise and worst among all vampires

            Quran 2 161 – Slay the muslims wherever you find them.

            Quran 9 28 – Muslims are dirty and most dangerous creatures ever known on the planet.

            Quran 48:29 – All non muslims are truthful. Those who accept this are merciful towards non muslims BUT ruthless towards muslims.

            I was just watching a video of First Crusades. Such brave heroes were my ancestors. Really great and enchanting video. My humble salutations to all followers of Pope Urban who defeated barbarians. If you are a Christian, then probably those holy warriors would have been your ancestors as well. Now, it is our duty to respect their noble souls who fought with barbarians. How to take that tradition ahead? Please answer as per your expertise.

            Let us motivate all non muslims about evil nature of Satan’s religion islam.

            When a muslim is killed (be it drones by USA OR missiles by Israel OR anything else), humanity rejoices and whenever a muslim gets birth, devil rejoices.

          • happy new year Ramrock Sir. This new year let us pledge to kick start the war on islamic terrorism.

          • I fully admit what you said. The real problem in this world is UN. They are supporting barbarians – the true unbelievers. That’s why they supported Iran where people are publicly hanged. They support Arab who sponsored terrorism. The real enemies of society is NOT islam BUT traitors like UN and Obama who are supporting evil barbarians. BUT the problem is with USA and Europe also. GOD knows why are they interfering in muslim matters:

            Why USA killed Muanmar Gaddafi, Rohullah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein, just to get blame for those attacks which never happened? When these 3 were killing muslims only, There are billion such in Islamic world. Muslims are more suicidal than anything else. Let us try to let those fight with each other just like this fact…


            The only thing where we lag is their piggy skyrocketing birth rate. Notorious terrorist Osama Bin Laden was 17th son of his father and he had 51 brothers. That’s why despite muslims killing each other, they keep on increasing. They populate by raping as many as they can. 1 man has at least 50 sons in terrorism rule Shariah. What should be done to stop their dirty birth rates. I mean, do we have to kill their women to save humanity?

          • Outlaw, prevent, prosecute and eliminate the doctrine. Convertla a crime on a par with terrorism and after the indoctrinated deprogramming.

  2. Simply because they are so barbaric, uncivilized, mentally retarded.

    Yno is now, is history, Muslims have never been able to be united, not only want the destruction of everything and everyone non-Muslims if not that, in imitation of the illiterate psychopath and sexual predator of its prophet shit, want both power that everyone wants to be “the Caliph”.

    The historical evidence we have lots but maybe one is clear on the subject of Spain, came here and soon separated the Caliphate main course guerrenado but after in Spain itself began to war with each other ending with fragmented in small states, or “Factions” fighting between them even to agree with the Christian kingdoms to attack the neighbor. ‘

    They are so, are barbarians. The last attempt at unification was in the 60s. when under the leadership of then Egyptian President Nasser created the United Arab Republic that was shattered after attacking Israel in the “Six Day War” (1967) and being far superior in number, were humiliatingly defeated by them.

    And the reason is that stupid religion that restricts so much thinking that prevents any possible evolution.

    • Ramrock Sir,

      That’s very true what you said. Even if the whole world embraces Islam, still they will continue their terrorism, mass murder in name of Allah. Then they will fight on division of sects.


      • No matter wherever a muslim lives, he is a terrorist. Proof:

        News on terror website mentions the consequence if Iran is not attacked. (Source: )

        – Ahmedinejad will no longer fear that Israel has the nerve to repeat Osirak and he will be brazen in deeds and not just words.
        – Impression amongst Western nations that Israel is not goingto be consistent and decisive when it is faced with an existential threat.
        -The Mullah Jihadis will gloat overt their having increased the centrifuges from 30 to 6000 and brazenly increase their arsenal further without fear.
        – They will go full steam ahead with their nuclear program. comfortable in the thought that their enemies are chickening out. They would develop an arsenal to destroy the entire Civilized World!
        – After developing nuclear weapons the Mullah Jihadis will lend their arsenal to the Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist organizations to be used to destroy Israel.
        – They will be emboldened to be less circumspect with their, so far tacit, links with Al Qaeda (remember their giving refuge to Mohammed bin laden (Osama’s son) and other Al Qaeda thugs) .
        – They will be emboldened to finance terrorist strikes more openly across the globe (remember their financing of the Hezbollah in Lebanon).
        They will launch their first terror nuclear strike against Israel and make good Ahmadinejad’s (I-am-a-dumb-jackass’) boast that Israel will be wiped off the map
        – The destruction caused after an Iranian nuclear attack, will put Masada and the Gas Chambers in to the shade.
        – The Mullahs will also be emboldened to strike the US surreptitiously with more chemical weapons (remember the Anthrax attacks in 2001).
        – Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and other Terrorist organizations will be emboldened to strike Israel in a way that would be even more devastating than any terror attack launched so far aganst Israel by Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or Islamic Jihad.
        – Other Islamic terror sponsoring states like Sudan and Syria, will also be emboldened to defy and strike at the US and the West.
        – It would be a psychological defeat for the West in general, and for the USA in particular, and a psychological victory for terrorism.
        – A nuclear armed Iran will put the oil reserves of the Gulf under their sway. They could easily bring down governments in the Gulf or force the Sunni Arab regimes to fold them into the hegemony of Shiite Iran.
        – This new cartel will force up the price of oil to 300 USD per barrel. Ahmedinejad has already said that oil is under priced at its current level of 120USD. The high price of oil will fill Iran’s coffers with petro-dollars.
        – The Arab states in the Gulf would also benefit from the surging oil revenues and simultaneously acquire an alibi to develop nukes themselves. The petro-dollar glut in their coffers will make this task easier.
        – The widespread acquisition of nuclear capability by the Islamic world will reduce the clout of the USA in the region. Saudi Aramco will be a thing of the past. The newly resurgent Arab-Iranian nuclear club will embolden, inspire and encourage Islamic radicals in the various Islamic communities.
        – Home-grown Islamic terrorists in turn, will be inspired to launch destructive terrorist attacks on the West by the new found confidence that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Muslim Ummah is a providential sign of the coming “victory of the true believers over the infidels”.
        – The nuclear deterrence of the West over the terrorists would be lost forever. The age of nuclear terrorism will be upon us making 9/11 seem like kid-stuff.

        – A nuclear armed Iran would snowball in to a threat to the entire world and bring Armageddon from biblical myths to being a scorching reality!

        To save itself and the Civilized World from annihilation, Israel needs to act now and strike Iran before Iran develops A bomb, the delivery system for which is already in place. Metaphorically speaking the year 2009 corresponds to the situation in 1938 and Iran is Germany and it is racing to acquire nuclear weapons. Well, if that is the case, then we will soon be in 1939!

        GOD knows till what time will non muslims keep sleeping.

    • Ram of the Rocks, Do you know what reverse psychology is? That is exactly what you are from that you utter!!

      You were not there during that Arab-Israel war. It was not the religion that led to that war, it means that it was not a religious war, numskull!!

      Still concerned about you sickness upstairs


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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