Are Christians morally fit to criticize Muslims over the issue of terrorism: (What does their Scripture say?)

  One does not turn many pages of the Bible before reading a passage like this
"When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them" (Deuteronomy 7:1-2)

  Bible reader may ask, is not this unprovoked assault against peaceful nations?! This is a legitimate question and we may direct it to our Christian critics. In which way do you justify this assault and subsequent genocide?! Further reading of the Bible tells us how this command was dutifully obeyed. I may recommend reading Numbers 21:35, 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 2:33-35, 20:13-14, 20:16, Joshua 6:21-27, 8:22-25, 10:10-40, ..etc..etc.. Food for thought.

  Christian missionaries enjoy behaving like Materialists when it comes to attacking Islam using all kinds of Argumentum Ad Populum (i.e. one makes an appeal to the crowd, trying to play on their feelings), but when it comes to their religion they preach us God of Love. Well, it is an established fact that the Bible mentions killing much more than love. I’m going to mention only one example:

  In the First Book of Samuel, Chapter  15, we read about Saul, the first Israelite king who was anointed by Prophet Samuel. The first assignment for the new king was “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (verse 3). As an Israelite king who should be an example of obedience, Saul gathered his troops and “utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword” (verse 8). But he did an awful mistake in the sight of God because “Saul and the people spared Agag (the king of the Amalekites), and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them” (verse 9), this unacceptable mistake made God tell Prophet Samuel “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments” (verse 11). Samuel informed Saul with the Word of God and how He rejected Saul as a king of Israel because God said kill everyone, so Saul should have killed everyone. Then Agag, the Amalekite king, was brought “And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal” (verse 33). If this is the kind of behaviour toward enemies preached by the Bible, then on what basis do Christian missionaries criticize Islam? I’m only amazed!

  Even Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) is reported in the Bible to be against peace. Consider these verses …
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division" (Luke 12:51)

  He even ordered his enemies to be slain before him
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

Refutation of anti-Islamic allegations:

  Here we are going to refute Silas’ article and his call for intolerance toward Muslims (no new ideology anyway!). I ignored his introduction because I think brother Akbarally Meherally has responded to it better than I would in his rebuttal to Silas’ article. I will just comment on his definition of terrorism.

A "terrorist" is defined as "one who engages in acts of terrorism". "Terrorism" is defined as "the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

First: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):
 

**Silas wrote** When Muhammad started out preaching his religion of Islam he was not violent. He was persecuted for preaching his religious ideas - Islam - and denigrating the pagan religions of the Meccans. Some of Muhammad's followers were tortured. Things were so bad for him and his few followers that he sent many of them to Abyssinia [Ethiopia] for refuge. Eventually, he and his followers moved north to a city called Yathrib [Medina], where some members of two Arab tribes wanted Muhammad to be their prophet

Narrated 'Ubada bin As Samit:
I was one of the Naqibs who gave the ('Aqaba) Pledge of Allegiance to God's Apostle . We gave the pledge of allegiance to him that we would not worship anything other than God, would not steal, would not commit illegal sexual intercourse, would not kill a person whose killing God has made illegal except rightfully, would not rob each other, and we would not be promised Paradise if we did the above sins, then if we committed one of the above sins, God will give His Judgment concerning it.(1)

  Another point should be brought to light; the Christian author of this article said that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was ‘not violent’, he couldn’t write ‘peaceful’ instead. Silas could not attribute the word ‘peace’ to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who was peaceful for 13 years, while he and his Christian fellows give Jesus (peace be upon him) the title of ‘Prince of Peace’ because he (peace be upon him) was peaceful for 3 years only. Who really deserves the title?
  I also want to point out that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was commanded to be peaceful, overlook and forgive.

“.. overlook (any human faults) with gracious forgiveness” (Holy Qur’an 15:85)

“But if ye forgive and overlook, and cover up (their faults), verily God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Holy Qur’an 64:14)

  This does not mean that Muslims are not allowed to be peaceful now. Peace is the basis, then fighting against oppression is ordained only due to certain circumstances detailed in other verses. When these circumstances were fulfilled, the permission of fighting was revealed.

  I guess one should also ponder a little, why did Muhammad (peace be upon him) withstand persecution for 13 years in Mecca? Why did not he give up the idea and continue taking care of his business since we know he was a wealthy trader? Why was the risk? He was accused of being a liar, insane and sorcerer, his two daughters got divorced, dung and sheep guts used to be thrown on him during praying, his people were seized and sanctioned, et cetera. But Christian missionaries do not want to draw our attention to such questions.

**Silas wrote** Just prior to Muhammad's leaving for Medina, he received a "revelation" allowing him to fight the Meccans. He knew that in Medina, he had a group of armed men who would support him. Furthermore, in Medina, would be more distant from the Meccans and their attempts to oppress or kill him

“Then Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said: “Return to your travelling place”. Al-‘Abbas Ibn ‘Ubadah Ibn Nadlah said: “I swear by God Who sent you with the Truth, if you will, we will overwhelm people of Mena tomorrow with our swords”.  Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said: “We are not commanded with this, but return to your travelling place”. So, we returned to our beds and slept till the morning.”(2)

  Furthermore, tribe of Bani 'Aamer Ibn Sa'sa'ah agreed to give him (peace be upon him) pledge of allegiance on condition that the leadership would go to them after his demise, but Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) refused. (As-Sirat-un-Nabawiyyah by Ibn Hesham, volume 2, pages 34-35. Tarikh-ut-Tabari, volume 1, page 556. Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah by Ibn Kathir, volume 3, pages 139-140.)

  Silas quoted "The Life of Muhammad", by A. Guillaume, which is a translation of Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasulallah". I do not have the book referenced by Silas, but I do have the Arabic origin known as “As-Sirat-un-Nabawiyyah” by Ibn Hesham, the disciple of Ibn Ishaq and the editor of his work. My copy is published by Dar-ul-Hadith, Cairo, Egypt. ISBN 977-5227-70-4.

**Silas wrote** "THE APOSTLE RECEIVES THE ORDER TO FIGHT

The apostle had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood before the second Aqaba [a place where a pledge was made between Muhammad and his followers from Medina]. He had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the ignorant. The Quraysh [a leading group of Meccans] had persecuted his followers, seducing some from their religion and exiling others from their country. They had to choose whether to give up their religion, be maltreated at home, or to flee the country, some to Abyssinia, others to Medina.

When Quraysh became insolent towards God and rejected His gracious purpose, accused His prophet of lying, and ill treated and exiled those who served Him and proclaimed His unity, believed in His prophet and held fast to His religion, He gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly......[a]
The meaning is "I have allowed them to fight only because they have been unjustly treated while their sole offense against men has been that they worship God. When they are in the ascendant they will establish prayer, pay the poor-tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity, i.e., the prophet and his companions all of them." The God sent down to him: "Fight them so that there be no more seduction," [b] i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. "And the religion is God's,", i.e. Until God alone is worshipped

END OF QUOTE
[Note: two passages from the Quran are referenced: [a] Sura 22:39-41, which I did not quote, and [b] Sura 2:193]

  Order of fighting (revealed in Madinah)
“And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression” (Holy Qur’an 2:193)

  Umm, one starts to understand why Silas omitted these verses from his quotation. If rendering were honest and complete, Silas would be ashamed of mentioning his ‘critical points’. Also, if he wrote the 3 lines next to his quote, it would be apparent that Messenger of God (peace be upon him) did not fight, but commanded his followers to migrate to Madinah where they will find refuge and safety. Moreover, we read that he (peace be upon him) stayed in Mecca despite persecution till the permission of migration would be given to him.
  Well, let’s ask the Christian author of that article; wouldn’t it be more convenient if Muhammad (peace be upon him) migrated first to guarantee his safety instead of staying and risking his life? Indeed, the dangers whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) was exposed to just before and during his migration were so numerous and close that his arrival to Madinah one piece could be fairly considered miraculous.

   **Silas wrote** Two critical points here

1) in Mecca, where Muhammad was weak, he attacked no one. He only preached his religion and insulted the Meccan's religions. But it was just prior to his leaving for Medina, where he had a limited amount of armed men to support him, that he received this "revelation" and began to use violence to further his desires. Islamic history shows that as Muslims grew in power their forms of violence changed from criminal terrorism to outright warfare

2) At the end of the quote, it says that Muslims are to fight those that do not worship Allah.

  The second point is even more desperate and I do not know which quote Silas refers to!! But the fact that Muslims are commanded to fight those who do not worship God is primarily true *if* they fulfill Islamic criteria of waging war that are oppression and exile of Muslims out of their homes. Whenever one of these two criteria is fulfilled, war becomes permissible. The reference to “those who do not worship God” is merely a description of the opponents not the reason why we are to fight them.

**Silas wrote** I also comment on Ibn Ishaq's work. When reading this passage from Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad is made to appear to be long suffering and primarily fighting in self defense, and that up until just before Muhammad's departure, the Meccan persecution was tolerable, but that it became so bad that Muhammad was finally given permission to fight back

The problem with this is that Muhammad had been severely persecuted prior to this and that Muslims had been abused well before their departure. In other words, the quoted passage is apologetic work on Ibn Ishaq's part. Earlier, well before the Treaty of Aqaba, things were so bad for Muhammad that he went to a town called Taif to seek their help and protection [Guillaume, op cit, page 192]. The Taifians rejected and abused him. Things were so bad for Muhammad in Mecca, Muhammad had to beg three men for their protection [Guillaume, op cit, page 194

In Mecca, Muhammad continued to proclaim himself as a prophet and he was abused all the more. He never received any "revelations" to fight at that time

Eventually, good fortune fell into Muhammad's lap and just as in Adolph Hitler's case, his persistence paid off. A group of feuding Arabs in Medina accepted him as their prophet. They hoped he could help them maintain peace. They eventually made a pledge to support Muhammad in war against the Quraysh [Guillaume, op cit, page 205]. Now Muhammad knew he had an able and armed following. It was only when he had a following that could defend themselves, and his people were migrating north to Medina, and that he knew he was going to leave town, that suddenly "Allah" gave Muhammad his "revelation" to fight. Muhammad's circumstances changed, and Muhammad's Allah changed with them. Muhammad went from being only a "warner" to being an aggressor.

  After leaving Mecca, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) became a target for all wealth hunters, he (peace be upon him) was ‘wanted dead or alive and preferably dead’(7). In the night of his migration, Pagans were awaiting before his door to finish him with their swords, but God saved him from their hands(8).

  Silas considers the severe torture and persecution against Muslims an evidence of their falsehood, and the order of fighting their oppressors a sort of terrorism. This acrobatic argument which asks Muslims to defy logic and common sense in order to prove their truthfulness may please Silas and his likes, but any rational person can easily recognize its fallacy.
  The embarrassing point whom Silas ignored is the right of Muslims to fight their oppressors. Muslims had full right to fight those who oppressed them and expelled them out of their homes, no one can challenge this right. So Mr. Silas went to play mind acrobatics to say that since it was very logic of Muhammad (peace be upon him) to fight after having a safe shelter in Madinah, then he was an aggressor, as if we are required to defy logic in order to be peaceful.

  Muslims have a very strong case against acrobatic logic of Silas, beginning with the fact that migration and war against Pagans were a part of divine plan (and foretold in previous Scriptures(9)) and ending with the fact that the first battle was between 313 Muslims with their swords and 950 Meccans (horsemen and footmen), do you really think Muslims were looking for trouble?!

**Silas wrote** MUHAMMAD'S EARLY TERRORIST ACTS

After moving to Medina, Muhammad began to have conflict with the Jews and pagans in the area. I'll focus on several incidents, not necessarily in chronological order, that illustrate Muhammad as a terrorist.

  Once the Prophet (peace be upon him) settled in Madinah, he made his famous treaty with the Jews. History reveals that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never dissolved a treaty and they were the Jews who violated it. Any unbiased reader of history can recognize this simple fact without difficulty.

**Silas wrote** The first terrorist incident involves Muhammad's command to his followers to "kill any Jew that comes under your power

From Guillaume, op cit, page 369:

"The apostle said, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power." Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'

END OF QUOTE

This story is also supported in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 2996:

Narrated Muhayyisah: The Apostle of Allah said: If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him. At that time Huwayyisah (brother of Muhayyisah) had not embraced Islam. He was older than Muhayyisah. When he killed him, Huwayyisah beat him and said: O enemy of Allah, I swear by Allah, you have a good deal of fat in your belly from his property.

END OF QUOTE

**Silas wrote** This murder was committed upon Muhammad's command. Note that this Muslim murderer would have killed a family member at the drop of a hat. Muhammad was no better than a bigoted criminal boss, ordering his men to wantonly murder Jewish people. Hitler did this. And, this is what Serbs are doing to the Kosovan Muslims. Muhammad's command to murder Jews puts him in the same category as Milosovic, Hitler, and others who have persecuted Jews throughout history.

**Silas wrote** A quote from an Islamic scholar - Wensinck writes in his, "Muhammad and the Jews of Medina" [2], page 113

"It is remarkable that tradition attributes Muhammad's most cruel acts to divine order, namely the siege of Qaynuqa, the murder of Kab, and he attack upon Qurayzah. Allah's conscience seems to be more elastic than that of his creatures."..... Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi report that the prophet said the morning after the murder (of Kab Ashraf), "Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on.".

  Well, since we reached this part, I had to say that narratives of Seera (i.e. biography of the Prophet) are not necessarily authentic. Scholars of Hadith have meticulous standards to evaluate authenticity of any report like reliability of isnad, matn and taraf. Silas gleefully wrote many
narratives of this kind from Guillaume’s book. For example, the story of killing Afak is without isnad at all, and the story of killing Asma’ is fabricated; one of its reporters, Muhammad Ibn-ul-Hajjaj, is accused of fabricating Hadith. Ibn Ishaq, the author,  himself received a lot of criticism from his contemporaries because he included weak stories in his work, he was even accused of fabricating some of them. I do not belittle his efforts, I just urge those who read references of Seera, Fiqh and Tafsir not to blindly believe in all narratives because the authors of these volumes (despite their immense knowledge concerning their fields) were not so sophisticated in Hadith as its specialized scholars.

  For any learned Muslim, Silas’ work is like quoting apocryphal Gospel while condemning Jesus’ behaviour for a Christian. A considerable portion of his article is based upon these weak-to-fabricated stories with addition of reviews, discussions and enumeration. As the Qur’an says, Truth stands out distinct from error, and we are proud that our enemies and critics depend upon falsehood to justify their claims.

  I’m just going to comment on a part of Silas’ argument concerning the last weak story of the slave girl (Abu Dawood included it in his Sunan and said it is weak).

**Silas wrote** Khatal was ordered to be killed not because he killed his male slave, a Muslim, but because he apostatized. Islamic law does not allow a Muslim man to be put to death for killing a slave.

  Well, since we have a good space, I’ll narrate some real stories about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to show you what kind of men he was.

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
A Jewish Woman brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of God’s Apostle(12).

  The Prophet (peace be upon him) refused to kill a woman who did intentionally try to poison him, but Silas wants us using weak-to-fabricated stories to believe that he ordered killing a woman (or women) who only abused him.

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Messenger of God (peace be upon him) saw the corpse of a woman who had been slain in one of the raids, and he disapproved of it and forbade the killing of women and children(13).

When Messenger of God (peace be upon him) sent out a raiding party, he would say to them, "Make your raids in the name of God, in the way of God. Fight whoever denies God. Do not steal from the booty, and do not act treacherously. Do not mutilate and do not kill children”(14).

  To the beginners, the Prophet saying “Fight whoever denies God” is merely a description of the enemy not the reason why we are to fight. This phrase and its likes are to provide the soldiers with morale and spiritual support.

  I admit I cannot keep up with Silas’ rhetoric; I cannot fill the page with polemics, discussions and reviews. I just display the *authentic* evidence before the readers and it is up to them to judge Silas’ methodology. It is clear that Muslims have a moral code for war, Qur’anic verses command them not to transgress and the Prophet (peace be upon him) commanded them not to transgress. Silas ignored this overwhelming authentic proof and went to quote weak-to-fabricated stories.

  Did these teachings survive after Prophet’s demise? History tells us they did.

Abu Bakr advised Yazid, "I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camel except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly"(15).

  Here we have the first Caliph summarizing the Islamic code of war in the above few words. As the Holy Qur’an tells us to fight only those who fight us and not to transgress because God does not love those who transgress.

  In the end, I quote from Deedat’s “Muhammad (pbuh) the Greatest”:

For forgiveness to be of any worth, the forgiver must be in a position to forgive.  If the victim of injustice is still in the clutches of his enemies; in that helpless position and he would cry out, "I FORGIVE YOU!" it would be meaningless.  But if the aggrieved party had turned the tables on his enemies and was in a position of taking revenge or exact retribution, and yet say "I forgive you!", only then would it mean something!

MUHAMMAD'S (PBUH) CLEMENCY

Contrast the alleged forgiveness from the "cross" with the historical bloodless conquest of Makkah by Muhammad (pbuh) at the head of ten thousand "saints" (his companions).

"THE CITY WHICH HAD TREATED HIM SO CRUELLY, DRIVEN HIM AND HIS FAITHFUL BAND FOR REFUGE AMONGST STRANGERS, WHICH HAD SWORN HIS LIFE AND THE LIVES OF HIS DEVOTED DISCIPLES, LAY AT HIS FEET.  HIS OLD PERSECUTERS RELENTLESS AND RUTHLESS, WHO HAD DISGRACED HUMANITY BY INFLICTING CRUEL OUTRAGES UPON INOFFENSIVE MEN AND WOMEN, AND  EVEN UPON THE LIFELESS DEAD, WERE NOW COMPLETELY AT HIS MERCY.  BUT IN THE HOUR OF HIS TRIUMPH EVERY EVIL SUFFERED WAS FORGOTTEN, EVERY INJURY INFLICTED WAS FORGIVEN, AND A GENERAL AMNESTY WAS EXTENDED TO THE POPULATION OF MAKKAH ..." Sayed Amir Ali in "The Spirit of Islam"

Calling before him the populace of the vanquished city, he addressed them with "What do you expect at my hands today?" His people had known him too well, even from his childhood so they replied, "Mercy, 0 generous brother and nephew!" Tears came into the eyes of the Prophet, and he said, "I will speak to you as Joseph spoke unto his brethren, I will not reproach you today: go you are free!"

And now a scene was enacted of which there is really no parallel in the history of the world.  Hosts upon hosts came forward and adopted the religion of Islam.

  Well, let’s conclude what we have gathered here:

• Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) began his Apostolic mission when he was 40 years old, he spent 13 years in Mecca preaching Islam to polytheists without use of the sword despite severe persecution.
• Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) migrated to Madinah when he was 53 years old and received the command to fight the oppressors back. Muslims engaged in 30 battles and raids during 10 years, number of those who were killed among polytheists in these battles did not exceed 200. This number is incomparable with number of victims of a single raid launched by Joshua.
• The core of Silas’ argument is based on either weak or fabricated stories that inevitably contradict authentic stories and traditions. These authentic traditions are conveniently ignored by Silas. And God guides only whom He pleases.