Secondly: the Holy Qur’an:

  Unlike the Bible, the Qur’an does not narrate history, nor does it contain the biography of Muhammad (peace be upon him) as non-Muslims think. Rather it is the revelation from God to His Messenger descended throughout 23 years. Yes, it includes many stories but they are mentioned for their moral, not historical, significance. Majority of Qur’anic verses have specific occasions of revelation and should be understood within their historical contexts in addition to textual contexts. Many Qur’anic teachings are suitable for every time but there are also many that should be interpreted within their context in order not to miss a point or make the Qur’an contradictory. For more detailed information about understanding the Qur’an, readers are encouraged to read “Introduction to the Understanding of Qur’an” by Abu Al-A’la Al-Mawdudi.

  Silas focused upon Surat-ul-Tauba using , again, ad populum arguments. It is not so hard for anyone who has a copy of the Qur’an and has read the Sura to refute Silas’ claims. But my goal is to leave no stone unturned, and so shall carry out the job of complete refutation myself, wa Allah-ul-Must’an.

(P.S. the following paragraphs are based upon book "Journey Through The Qur'an - The Content and Context of the Suras" by Muhammad Al-Ghazali, published by Dar Al Taqwa Ltd; 7A Melcombe Street, London NW1 6AE.)

  Surat-ul-Tauba which is the 9th Chapter of the Qur’an was revealed 15 months before Prophet’s demise. Muslims used to follow a very wise policy that is “If they charge thee with falsehood, say: my work to me, and yours to you ye are free from responsibility for what I do, and I for what ye do!” (Holy Qur’an 10:41).
  But polytheists were not satisfied with this policy and they did not refrain from treacherous acts against Muslims, that’s why the command was come to punish these groups and this is the order from God and His Apostle. Missionaries are misleading the people when they concentrate upon a piece of verse and ignore the rest of the passage. For example, they claim that the Sura declared war against all unbelievers and quote “fight the Pagans all together …” without completing the passage “…as they fight you all together” (Holy Qur’an 9:36).
  Also in the following saying “God and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans” (Holy Qur’an 9:3). Some went to interpret it to mean all the Pagans ignoring the next exception and note.
First there is an excpetion “(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God loveth the righteous” (Holy Qur’an 9:4)

  It is decisively clear that the war was against certain people who failed Muslims’ treaties as well as aided others against them. Are we to blame for fighting such people?!
And the next note is very important, because it shows the kindness of God, who is neither racist nor condemning. During the process of punishing the transgressors, some innocent people who have nothing to do with war would appear. They did not want to fight, nor did they seek it. That’s why the command came to secure them
“If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge” (Holy Qur’an 9:6).

  So where is the unprovoked assault in this context? Let’s explore more in the Sura, Islam gave the Pagans 4 months in order to re-consider and fix themselves
“Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate God (by your falsehood) but that God will cover with shame those who reject Him” (Holy Qur’an 9:2).

  This means that the term of 4 months is not out of weakness, so do not be fooled by your alleged power. Moreover, the Sura says
“How can there be a league, before God and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the Sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for God doth love the righteous” (Holy Qur’an 9:7)

  We are sincere with those who keep their covenants, but those who transgress the limits and act treacherously have no covenants with us, since they did not keep their treaties, we do not keep them.

  It seems that Muslims were afraid from the consequences of this attitude and realized that their enemies are powerful, and their power is what made them transgress without respect for Muslims. The Qur’an disliked this fear and provoked Muslims to fight “fight ye the chiefs of unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained” (Holy Qur’an 9:12). Then the tone gets stronger to provoke Muslims against traitors and assailants
“Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!” (Holy Qur’an 9:13).

  On following the Sura, one discovers that those whom we are commanded to fight were not people of peace and trust and they used to abuse and insult Muslims for a long time and they hurt them so much.
“Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers” (Holy Qur’an 9:14).

  Do you find in this context any assault against peaceful people? Indeed, description of this Sura as a change in Muslims’ policy indicates none but stark ignorance. We are still the same: we are peaceful with whoever is peaceful with us and fight whoever fights us. We still preach our Faith with nice speech and beautiful exhortation without accepting humiliation. As that also we were commanded in the Holy Qur'an. That is the only way Islam can be spread because there is no way due to the nature of the religion that Islam can be forced

  Before moving on, it is noteworthy to know that Pagans in Arabia quickly embraced Islam and no one waited till the end of 4 months period. In order to understand this rapid collapse of Paganism, one should recall the status of Mecca as the religious capital of Arabia and spiritual center. When it turned into a purely Islamic city and Pagans were prevented from attending it, they found that their idols did nothing for them. Imagine being prevented from visiting their gods (even these alleged gods were destroyed!)? It was a simple proof that they were false gods. Wholeheartedly they embraced Islam.

  Now, let's deal with attitude of Islam toward Christianity and Christians. Since early days of Islam, Christians used to come to Mecca, then to Madinah in order to listen to the new Revelation. Some embraced Islam and some nicely discussed Islamic rejection of Jesus’ divinity despite great respect and reverence of Muslims to him. Islam never felt threatened by Christians of Yemen or others, but the threat came from Roman Empire in the north.

  Here, we’d like to draw attention to two points:
1) Islam was (and still) a friend for Christians and the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered his followers with migration to Abyssinia (i.e. Ethiopia) when they were persecuted in Mecca. Also, Muhammad (peace be upon him), as was revelaed to him by God in the Holy Qur'an, was the only one on face of earth who predicted victory of Romans over Persians after their massive defeat (Qur’an 30:2-4).
2)  Despite this friendship with Christian people, Islam was explicit in its denial of the Trinity and rejection of divinity of Jesus and Gabriel. Revelation in Mecca and Madinah confirmed this view and asked followers of the Christ to correct their beliefs, worship God alone without partners, follow the divine Law and equate Popes and Bishops with the rest of people.

  Anyway, God in Islam is One and Only, Eternal, Absolute, never begets, never has been begotten and there is none like unto Him. Roman Empire shut its doors before Islam and used its army to prevent Islamic teachings from reaching its lands. The first battle was in Mu’ta between 3.000 Muslim soldiers and 200.000 Roman soldiers (were Muslims really looking for trouble?!), the 3 Generals of Muslim army were killed in this battle.

  To be more explicit, Romans persecuted the Church of Arius who said that Jesus is a created being not Creator. They persecuted Eastern Churches and considered them ‘heretics’ as well. Was they then ready, at any level, to accept Islamic creed?! Indeed, Islam was fighting for religious freedom. When Surat-ul-Tauba was revealed, hostility was already established between the new Islamic State and mighty Roman Empire. In that time, Roman Empire was on top of the world after its tremendous victory over Persian Empire while Muslims were a small portion of Arabs and the rest of Arabs were allies either to the Romans or to the Persians.
  The command of fighting the Romans really frightened many Muslims who feared its consequences, that’s why the Qur’an came to rebuke them
“O ye who believe what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter” (Holy Qur’an 9:38)

“Say: if it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that ye have gained; the commerce in which ye fear a decline: or the dwellings in which ye delight- are dearer to you than God, or His Messenger, or the striving in His Cause- then wait until God brings about His Decision: and God guides not the rebellious” (Holy Qur’an 9:24)

  For more detailed understanding, I recommend the book "Journey Through The Qur'an - The Content and Context of the Suras" by Muhammad Al-Ghazali, published by Dar Al Taqwa Ltd; 7A Melcombe Street, London NW1 6AE.

  Now, we deal with Silas’ article again . . .

**Silas wrote** Muhammad taught his followers to oppress or kill non-Muslims. Generally, Jews and Christians were allowed to live as such, provided they paid a special tax. This tax is Jizya, a tax revenue given to the Muslims

Narrated `Abdullah bin `Amr:
The Prophet said, "Whoever kills a person having a treaty with the Muslims, shall not smell the smell of Paradise though its smell is perceived from a distance of forty years"(16).

  As for Jizya, it was a material evidence that non-Muslims are loyal citizens in the Islamic State. If anyone bothers reading Islamic references, he will find that it used to equal 48 dirhams for the rich, 24 dirhams for middle class and 12 dirhams for the poor according to Abu Hanifah's School of Thought. According to Malik's it equals 40 dirhams or 4 dinars. In early days, it was one dinar for every earning adult male. In Egypt, it was 2 dinars for every adult while women, children and old men were exempted(17).
  In brief, this annual tax used to equal 1-2 dollars by today's standards and may reach 4 dollars for the rich. This shows that its significance was merely symbolic, not materialistic. Any comparison of annual Jizya with annual Zakat decreed on Muslims evidently exposes falsehood of Silas' argument. Zakat is annual charity decreed on Muslims, it is one of pillars of Islam and equals 2.5% of Muslim's annual income. In the same time, Muslims are assigned with protection of non-Muslims and guarding their properties while non-Muslims are exempted from these duties.
  So the last word in Jizya is that it is paid for Muslims for their protection. If a non-Muslim embraces Islam, he is exempted from Jizya and assigned with military service.
  During conquest of Syria, Muslims returned Jizya to the Christians when the formers found that they could not protect the latters. Non-Muslims used to have the choice to participate in the army and be exempted from Jizya and some did like Christian tribe of Gragemah and inhabitants of a city in the north of Persia(18). Much can be said about this particular subject, but I’ll stop here and move on.

**Silas wrote** This tax is Jizya, a tax revenue given to the Muslims to make up for revenues they lost from no longer dealing in pagan activities

**Silas wrote** If the Jews and Christians refused to pay this extortion tax they would have to convert to Islam or be killed. Non Jews or Christians (idolaters or pagans) had to convert to Islam or be killed. Generally they didn't have the option of paying the tax. Here is the verse that teaches Muslims to oppress Jews and Christians:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, (which is Islam that abolishes all other religions ) of the people of the Book, (meaning the Jews and the Christians ) until they pay the Jizya (the tax imposed upon them) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. (with humiliation and submission to the government of Islam.) 9:29 ." (Commentary in parenthesis is from the Tafsir Al-Jalalein. i.e., Al-Jalalein Interpretation of the Koran.)

The order to kill Christians and Jews is in that verse. It is clear that Muhammad ordered his followers to fight those Christians and Jews to convert them or pay the Jizya, and if they don't convert or pay, do you think that he told the followers to let them go in peace? It is very clear: convert... or pay with submission ... or die.

  Silas repeated the same argument saying ...

Also note that the tax levied upon the Christians and Jews was not to support the state in general affairs, it was to compensate the Muslims. Muhammad was exactly like Mafia crime boss, making others pay for "protection".... except, the Christians and Jews really needed protection from the Muslims!

**Silas wrote** Here is the verse in the Quran that teaches Muslims to attack and kill pagans:

"When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful." Sura 9:5

**Silas wrote** Inform those who disbelieve, about a painful punishment except those polytheists with whom you have made a treaty......If one of the polytheists, i.e. one of those whom I have ordered you to kill, asks your protection, give it him so that he may hear the word of God; then convey him to his place of safety.

Note that in the last quoted paragraph, it is supposed to be God telling the Muslims to go out and kill people. Some of these people had gotten along peacefully with the Muslims. But because they didn't follow Muhammad, they were going to be attacked.

Thirdly: Apostates:

**Silas wrote** Muhammad was not content to conquer by force, or kill those that merely opposed him verbally. Muhammad also taught that Muslims who leave the Islamic faith are to be murdered as well.

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:6-9)

"And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, .....and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die." (Deuteronomy 17:3-5)

"All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman." (2 Chronicles 15:13)

  I can expect that anyone but a Bible thumper to criticize Muslims for this. This argument is better directed to God of Israel. Exodus 22:20 says “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed”. Moses ordered killing of those who worshipped the golden calf, hence, killed three thousand men (Exodus 32:27-28). Exodus 35:2 says concerning the Sabbath “whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death”. So Moses ordered stoning a man to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath day (Numbers 15:32-36). Book of Deuteronomy commands killing of any prophet preaching worship of other than God of Israel even if this prophet gives miracles and wonders (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). Whosoever invites to worship of such gods shall be mercilessly put to death even if he is a close relative or a friend (Deuteronomy 13:6-11). If a city converted to worship of any other god(s), its inhabitants and their cattle shall be all killed and the entire city shall be burnt and never built again (Deuteronomy 13:12-16). If any man or woman worship any other god(s), he/she shall be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 17:2-7). We do not find such cruelty in Islam. I wonder how come Silas could not recognize all this ‘terrorism’ in the Bible and recognized it in Islam! Moreover, Elijah slew 450 prophets of Baal at the brook Kishon (1 Kings 18:40). So if you want to accuse Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), start with Moses and Elijah.

**Silas wrote** Narrated Ali, "Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's messenger, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky, then ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you, (not a Hadith), then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah's messenger saying, "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people, who will say the best words, but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will leave the faith) and will go out from their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection."
 

Not only did Muhammad teach that Muslims are to murder those that have left Islam, "wherever you find them", he further taught that a Muslim who commits this type of murder will be doing God's service and be rewarded!

  The second Hadith quoted by Silas reads
Narrated `Abdullah:
God's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but God and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."(19)

  Not all scholars agree that the last reference to “the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims" points to the apostate, a better translation would be “the one who leaves his religion and leaves the community”. Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah (died 728 AH) stated that it means the militant, not the apostate. His evidence is the report of the same Hadith on authority of ‘Aisha mentioned in Sunan Abi Dawood that reads “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but God and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: a man who commits adultery after marriage for he is stoned, a man who fights God and His Apostle for he is either killed, crucified or exiled out of land or a man who kills a soul for he is killed in retaliation.”(20). Ibn Taimiyyah said that the exception is the one who is described as  leaving the religion and the community and this occurs by being militant against Muslims(21).

  According to this interpretation, the reasons for killing a Muslim are murder, adultery after marriage and fighting Muslims. So leaving Muslims is meant to be fighting against them, not apostasy, and the militant, whether Muslim or not, is to be killed according to Islamic Law. Hence, the verdict on the apostate whose apostasy is not associated with fighting against Muslims cannot be found in this Hadith. In other words, this Hadith does not tell the verdict on the apostate, but the militant.

  The last Hadith quoted by Silas is the one on authority of Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbas that God’s Apostle said, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."(22), it is mentioned in Sahih-ul-Bukhari, Sunan Abi Dawood and Mutta Malik. Scholars of Abu Hanifah’s School of Thought say that apostate women are not to be killed because the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade killing women and since the prohibition is general, then it includes apostate women (compare it with Deuteronomy 17:2-7 and 2 Chronicles 15:13!). They also enumerate 14 categories of apostasy that does not follow this Hadith(23).

  This Hadith, though, does not decree execution as a specific legal punishment of apostasy. It just allows for Muslim judge to reach this verdict whenever required, but it does not necessitate it. There are many evidences that execution of apostate is not a specific legal punishment.

  First: The Holy Qur’an mentions apostasy in many places without any reference to an earthly punishment (Qur’an 2:108, 2:217, 3:86-90, 3:177, 4:137, 9:66, 9:72, 16:106-109 and 47:25-27). But this is insufficient to claim that apostasy can go unpunished because God allowed His Messenger to legalize for his nation what the Qur’an does not speak of and He also commanded us with obedience of His Apostle and following his verdict(24).

  Secondly: all Hadith reports telling that Messenger of God (peace be upon him) killed an apostate or commanded with killing any are unauthentic. Imam Al-Shawkani analyzed them all and proved their unreliability(25).

  Thirdly: the Hadith related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim in their collections of Sahih Hadith.

Narrated Jabir:
A bedouin came to the Prophet and gave a pledge of allegiance for embracing Islam. The next day he came with fever and said (to the Prophet ), "Please cancel my pledge (of embracing Islam and of emigrating to Medina)." The Prophet refused (that request) three times and said, "Medina is like a furnace, it expels out the impurities (bad persons) and selects the good ones and makes them perfect."(26)

  Judge ‘Ayyad said that this bedouin asked for canceling his Islam(27). So it is a glaring case of apostasy, but God’s Apostle (peace be upon him) did not punish the man or command him to be punished, but he let him leave Madinah without opposition.

  Fourthly: the Hadith related by Al-Bukhari
Narrated Anas:
There was a Christian who embraced Islam and read Surat-al-Baqara and Al-`Imran, and he used to write (the revelations) for the Prophet. Later on he returned to Christianity again and he used to say: "Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him." Then God caused him to die, and the people buried him, but in the morning they saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said, "This is the act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of our companion and took his body out of it because he had run away from them." They again dug the grave deeply for him, but in the morning they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said, "This is an act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of our companion and threw his body outside it, for he had run away from them." They dug the grave for him as deep as they could, but in the morning they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. So they believed that what had befallen him was not done by human beings and had to leave him thrown (on the ground)(28).

  In the above Hadith, the man returned to Christianity after embracing Islam and learning two Suras of the Qur’an. Though, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not punish him.

  Fifthly: what the Qur’an says about Jews who used to vibrate between Islam and disbelief to tempt Muslims away from their religion.
“A section of the People of the Book say: believe in the morning what is revealed to the Believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back” (Holy Qur’an 3:72)

  This mass apostasy took place in Madinah while Islamic State was already established under leadership of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Though, these apostates whose aim, according to the Qur’an itself, was to tempt Muslims away from Islam, were not punished(29).

  Sixthly: the reports of Muslim Caliphs and scholars who did not take execution as a punishment of apostasy like Caliph ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab who suggested imprisonment(30), Caliph ‘Umar II who assigned apostates with paying Jizyah(31) and Ibrahim Al-Nakh’y’s verdict (a disciple of Prophet’s Companions) of inviting the apostate to repentance forever. Sheikh Sufyan Al-Thawri accepted the verdict of Al-Nakh’y and said, “This is what I recommend.”(32).

  In conclusion, although the Hadith of "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" is authentic according to isnad (i.e. chain of reporters), it is not easy for us to accept death penalty as a specific legal punishment of apostasy, because among criteria of legal penalty is that it is applied whenever the crime is committed which is not the case here. We say that this Hadith does not necessitate death penalty, it just permits it. It is obvious that early Muslim scholars and leaders made punishments for apostasy other than execution, and this cannot take place unless they understood the Hadith the way we explained. So it is up to Islamic authorities in Islamic State to determine the suitable penalty for apostasy, whether execution, prison, fine or invitation to repentance. And God knows best.