I appreciate Paul Bilal Williams letting me comment again on his [old] blog recently.
Paul Bilal Williams had this video up at his blog; but his blog is no longer there; So I found Hamza Yusuf’s video on YouTube: a video up of Hamza Yusuf explaining the concept of Dhimmi and Dhimmitude in Islam. ( Paul B. Williams keeps taking his blogs down, leaving Islam and coming back to Islam. He seems to struggle with his faith.)
Dhimmi in Islam basically means the minority, subjugated, protected peoples who have to pay a submission tax (Jiziye – Qur’an Surah 9:29) under the Islamic state, originally it was the Christians and the Jews, the people of the book. Later is was expanded to include the Zorastrians in Persia, when the Arabs conquered the Persian Empire, and then later even extended to Hindus and Buddhists in India, when they expanded their jihads into India.
Hamza Yusuf makes some good points, but . . . the parallel he makes with USA and Kuwait is not a complete parallel. Keep reading.
The Expansion of Islam
Expansion of Islam (622 AD – 750 AD)
Age of the Caliphs and Dhimmi System
Expansion under Muhammad, 622–632/A.H. 1-11
Expansion during the Rashidun Caliphate, 632–661/A.H. 11-40
Expansion during the Umayyad Caliphate, 661–750/A.H. 40-129
In order to understand Dhimmi ذمّی and Dhimmitude in Islam, one has to get the larger context than just Hamza Yusuf’s short statement. One should read all of the links to the articles below to understand Dhimmi and Dhimmitude. It developed from Surah 9:28-29 and from the Pact of Umar I (Umar/Omar Ibn Al Kattab, the Second Caliph, 634-644 AD) and was further developed under another Umar/Omar – Umar Ibn Abdul Azziz, who was Caliph from 717-720 AD.)
Overall, if one reads all the information here, and the links to other articles, it shows the problem with modern Muslims claiming that that the attacks on the Byzantine and Persian Empires from 634 AD onward to 732 (battle of Tours and Charles Martel stopping the Muslims in Europe) and beyond all the way to 1453 and the conquering of Constantinople, are false claims for saying they were seeking to free the Copts and other Monophysites and Nestorians from the tryanny of the Byzantine and Persian Empires. It is true that at the beginning, from some exant sources, the Monophysite Copts and Syrians said that they welcomed the Arab Muslims as liberators from their Byzantine oppressors. (policies from Justinian (Emperor from 527-565 AD) and Heraclius (Emperor from 610-641 AD – at time of Muhammad) who both tried to unify the Monophysite groups to unity with the Chalcedonian Creed of 451 AD.) However, according to the Qur’an and Hadiths, that was not Muhammad nor the Caliphs motivations. They wanted to spread Islam, as David Wood points out, Surah 9:29 does not say, “fight the people of the book because they oppress each other” (Byzantines/Chalcedonian Creed vs. Monophysite Copts, Jacobite Syrians and Armenians; and Nestorians vs. Zoroastrian Persia). It says “fight them because of their beliefs and practices” and verse 28 and 29 indicates that Allah will make them rich by the jiziye tax that they will get from the Christians and Jews. So the attacks of Umar Ibn Al Kattab and the Jihads of the Muslims after that were all unjust. Later, the Copts and Syrians and other minorities could not complain because of fear of persecution and violence, and it was too late. As one Coptic Christian Evangelical said to me, “The Muslims decieved my people at the beginning; for later it became worse.” The minority Christians slowly converted to Islam over the centuries because of the economic and social pressures of being “Dhimmi” – really, it amounted to being a second class citizen.
What is really interesting is verse 28 – “if you fear poverty, soon Allah will enrich you”. the reason for that was because Muhammad had conquered the Hijaz (the Arabian peninsula, especially around Mecca and Medina, and no pagans or idol worshippers were allowed. That means the Muslims could not get tax or penalty money from the pagans. Surah 9:5 – “fight the unbelievers where ever you find them”, proves this, and several Hadith that says “no two religions will be allowed on the Arabian peninsula” see Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288, and other Hadiths, quoted at the bottom of this article *) They were all killed or driven out or converted to Islam. So now, there is no revenue from the pilgrimmages, so, according to verses 28-29, they will allow the Christians and Jews to be in the Islamic state, provided they surrender and don’t fight/resist, and pay the Jiziye with humiliation, and they cannot evangelize or build new churches or even criticize Islam.
Qur’an 9:28—O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.
Qur’an 9:29—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, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Qur’an 9:30—The Jews call Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4— “Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Fight 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, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.”
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—”Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious.”
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/05/quran-in-context-1-fight-those-who-do.html
About the Pact of Umar Ibn Al Khattab, the Second Khaliph of Sunni Islam. (some of the quotes below are taken from this article) Shows that Christians and Jews were indeed humiliated, forced to pay the Jiziye, contrary to what Hamza Yusuf said, and were not allowed to evangelize or build new churches, or even to repair existing churches. (this one seems to have been sometimes allowed in Muslim history, but they were never allowed to build new churches or evangelize Muslims.)
A Muslim scholar admits that the most quoted Hadith about the greater Jihad being the struggle against one’s inner sinful desires is a weak Hadith. (most quoted in the west trying to tell westerners that “Jihad” is not primarily about fighting in war.)
What the Qur’an teaches about violence.
Jihad Study from Qur’an and Hadith by Richard Bailey
Timeline of the Islamic Jihads and conquerings
Dhimmi and Dhimmitude by Bat Ye’or
Jews and Christians under Islam
Back to the video by Hamza Yusuf that Paul Williams put up at his site.
Hamza Yusuf makes some good points. The Muslims were kind to the Jews and other heretics when they were fleeing the persecutions of the Roman Catholics during the middle ages, especially when they were fleeing the Spanish Inquisition.
The point that the Kuwaitis paid for protection against Saddam Hussein and the USA rebuilt Kuwait and got S.H. out of Kuwait for a price is a pretty good point . . .
except the USA never stayed there as the rulers (Omar and Islam / subsequent Khaliphs did after they conquered most of the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire), and they never required anyone to convert to any kind of religion, and they never forbid evangelism/da’awa. The USA promoted freedom of thought and freedom of speech, and freedom of religion (this includes freedom to evangelize, which Islam never permits.)
In order to understand Dhimmi / Dhimmitude, Hamza Yusuf left out a lot of details of the requirements of the Dhimmi peoples – the Christians (and Jews) were not allowed to evangelize or share the gospel with Muslims. And Muslims were never allowed freedom of speech and / or thought – to question Islam or leave Islam. The USA in Kuwait was a temporary thing, we helped them rebuilt their country, allowed freedom of thought, and left. To this day, the Kuwaiti people love George H. W. Bush for getting Saddam out of Kuwait.
Dhimmi does not mean “responsibility” but it means “protected under contract”, or “contract” or “agreement of the “protected ones”. One could say that the Dhimmis had responsibility to respond rightly, but the choice was pay the Jiziye tax or be punished, tortured, imprisoned or die by the sword. Also, later, the Muslims added the Kharaj tax, and together it slowly wore down the populations to where the Christians converted to Islam. Their responsibility was to obey the covenants in the Pact of Umar/ Omar 1 (Islamic history attributes it to Omar ibn Al Khattab- around 637-638 AD, when he conquered Jerusalem and Syria/Levant, but many agree that it was probably developed and added to by a later Umayyad Khaliph, who also had the name of Umar/Omar – in the Covenant of Omar 2 ( Omar Ibn Abdul Azziz) ( 717-720 AD) There is no doubt there is humiliation there and by the comments of Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hazm, if you read them with honesty, there is no way that what Hamza Yusuf says about “Saghir” (humiliation, small, lower than, less than) can stand up to scrutiny. Hamza Yusuf doesn’t tell the whole story, and distorts things on this issue.
Despite being attributed to Umar Ibn al Khattab, the second Khaliph, by early Muslim jurists, most modern scholars are of the opinion that the document was either the work of 9th century Mujtahids, or was forged during the reign of the Umayyad Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (717-720 AD), with other clauses added later. Other scholars concluded that the document may have originated in immediate post-conquest milieu and was stylized by later historians.
Originally, Muhammad’s Islam was that only Christians and Jews were allowed to live if they paid the Jizieye, (Surah 9:28-29) and only later, when the Muslims were conquering Persia, did they expand it to the Magi / Majoosian (the Arabic word for Zoroastrians). But most Persians were killed, eventually converted or fled Persian/Iran – there are more Zoroastrians (Parsees) in Mumbai, India today, than in Iran. They are the descendants of those that fled the harsh wars against them in Persia, started by Khalif Umar Ibn Al Khattab. Much later, when Islam expanded through Jihads and Wars into India, they expanded the Dhimmi principle to Buddhists and Hindus, but originally, it was only for Monotheistic religions, Jews and Christians.
“[The] capitation-tax [Jizya] is a sort of punishment inflicted upon infidels for their obstinacy in infidelity, (as was before stated;) whence it is that it cannot be accepted of the infidel if he send it by the hands of a messenger, but must be exacted in a mortifying and humiliating manner, by the collector sitting and receiving it from him in a standing posture : (according to one tradition, the collector is to seize him by the throat, and shake him, saying, “Pay your tax, Zimmee!) It is therefore evident that capitation-tax is a punishment; … Secondly, capitation-tax is a substitute for destruction in respect to the infidels, and a substitute for personal aid in respect to the Muslims, (as was before observed;) – but it is a substitute for destruction with regard to the future,” From the Hanafi Sharia Law manual.
Thus in the Hanifi school – which was the most liberal of the four with regard to Jizya – the Jizya is clearly identified as a “humiliation” and a “substitute for destruction”. Thus we can see who it primarily was the such “protected persons” as Dhimmis were actually protected from. In other words: Jizya is a protection racket and if you don’t pay you will be killed.
One renowned modern Muslim commentator, S. Abul A’la Mawdudi writes:
“They [Jews and Christians] should be forced to pay Jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land.”(Mawdudi, S. Abul A’la, The Meaning of the Qur’an, 1993 edition, vol 2, page 183.)
* No two religions are allowed in Arabia
Narrated Said bin Jubair: Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Thursday! What (great thing) took place on Thursday!” Then he started weeping till his tears wetted the gravels of the ground . Then he said, “On Thursday the illness of Allah’s Apostle was aggravated and he said, “Fetch me writing materials so that I may have something written to you after which you will never go astray.” The people (present there) differed in this matter and people should not differ before a prophet. They said, “Allah’s Apostle is seriously sick.’ The Prophet said, “Let me alone, as the state in which I am now, is better than what you are calling me for.” The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, “Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them.” I forgot the third (order)” (Ya’qub bin Muhammad said, “I asked Al-Mughira bin ‘Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, ‘It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and Yemen.” Ya’qub added, “And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama.”) – Sahih Al Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288
“Yahya related to me from Malik from Ismail ibn Abi Hakim that he heard Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz say, “One of the last things that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said was, ‘May Allah fight the jews and the christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration . Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the land of the Arabs.’ ” – Malik’s Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.17
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula.”
Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, ”Umar ibn al-Khattab searched for information about that until he was absolutely convinced that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, ‘Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,’ and he therefore expelled the jews from Khaybar.” – Malik’s Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.18
Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: people of two different religions would not inherit from one another. – Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 18, Number 2905
It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. – Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4366
Apologetics and Agape 
Pingback: Rod Bennett’s lecture, “The Four Witnesses brought me home” | Apologetics and Agape
War is deceit, but when the Non-Aggression pact between Moslems and Non-Moslems is respected, there ‘s no any deceit.
Q.9, v.4. Excepted are those with whom you make a treaty among the polytheists, then they do not render you loss in everything, and not trample you over anything; so fulfill for them their treaty til their term. Indeed, Allah loves the unblemished ones.
Q.9, v.7. Hence, on whatever they are upright toward you, be upright also toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the unblemished ones.
Bukhari, Hadith 2930.
The Prophet said, “Whoever killed a Mu’ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling).”
Moslems have 2 opinions on the myth of ‘Umar II’s Pact:
(i) It is a very bad Bada’at because neither Prophet Muhammad nor 4 Early Caliphs invented it.
(ii) It is unbelievably a daring rebellion against Prophet Muhammad himself who said emphatically on Christ’s Golden Rule:
Abu Dawud, Hadith 3052.
Allah’s Messenger said: “If anyone wrongs a man with whom a covenant has been made, or curtails any right of his, or imposes on him more than he can bear, or takes anything from him without his ready agreement, I shall be his adversary on the day of resurrection.”
Then why did Umar Ibn Al Kattab, the 2nd Caliph aggressively attack the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire, and many Caliphs after him kept expanding the Islamic empire by aggressive war (Harb حرب , Qatal – قتل – fighting/ slaying until death or surrender – from Surah 9:29). They kept attacking until they conquered all of N. Africa, Spain, Persia and beyond – later wars against Hindus and Buddhists, etc.?
And what about the Hadiths that say:
“no two religions will be allowed on the Arabian peninsula”. ?
“Ken Temple says: “no two religions will be allowed on the Arabian peninsula”. ?”
Khaybar’s Jews were spared by Prophet Muhammad, also by Umar Ibn Al Kattab, the 2nd Caliph:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0012_0_11088.html
Contrary to the statements of Graetz, Dubnow, and others, however, not all the Jews of Khaybar were expelled by Omar.
Those who had made special treaties and covenants with Muhammad, especially the members of the family of his wife safiyya, were allowed to remain.
Graetz’s theory about the wanderings of the Jews of Khaybar to Kufa on the Euphrates, where they influenced the center of the gaonate in Babylonia and served as an ethnic background for the growth of Karaism there, is basically incorrect.
…
An Arabic source published by *Goldziher (REJ, 28 (1894), 83) quotes an Arabic account in which the Muslims express their astonishment that the Jewish women of Khaybar put on their most beautiful jewelry on the Day of Atonement.
..
The Jews of Khaybar, like Jews in other parts of the Hejaz, are mentioned hundreds of years after the expulsion of some of them by Omar.
At the end of the 11th century they still had possessions, lands, fields, and castles in the region of Katiba, which was a region of Banu Nadir in the time of Muhammad.
The Jews of Wadi al-Qura addressed questions about the cultivation of dates to R. Sherira and Hai Gaon in Babylonia.*Benjamin of Tudela (12 th century) heard rumors, which are exaggerated, about the power of the Jews of Khaybar and Tayma, who were still addressing questions to the exilarchs in*Baghdad.
With a consistency in Historical facts, the early Moslems, early Caliphs, and Moslem empires onward never stepped in to the western neighboring country, that is Ethiopia, where the great Christian kingdom once laid. Hence the real reason of northern conquest and eastern conquest is, because Moslems and our allies (Jews, Christian Monophysites, Arab Ghassanids, Christian Lakhmids) were attacked first.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Persia
Revolt of the Arab Client States (602)
The Byzantine clients, the Arab Ghassanids, converted to the Monophysite form of Christianity, which was regarded as heretical by the established Byzantine Orthodox Church. The Byzantines attempted to suppress the heresy, alienating the Ghassanids and sparking rebellions on their desert frontiers.
The Lakhmids also revolted against the Persian king Khusrau II. Nu’man III (son of Al-Monder IV), the first Christian Lakhmid king, was deposed and killed by Khusrau II in 602, because of his attempt to throw off the Persian tutelage.
After Khusrau’s assassination, the Persian Empire fractured and the Lakhmids were effectively semi-independent. It is now widely believed that the annexation of the Lakhmid kingdom was one of the main factors behind the Fall of Sassanid dynasty, to the Muslim Arabs and the Islamic conquest of Persia, as the Lakhmids agreed to act as spies for the Muslims after being defeated in the Battle of Hira by Khalid ibn al-Walid.[5]
Muslims were not attacked first.
I will admit that the Byzantine’s under Justinian (500s) and Hericlius (early 600s) were too harsh (and un-Biblical, as there is no such thing in the New Testament as physical punishment for disagreements or heresies and there is no such thing in the New Testament (the Gospel, the Injeel) as the unity of the state with the church) against the Monophysites/Miaphysites in Egypt, Syria, Levant, Mesopotamia; and that created bitterness against the Byzantines, the Chalcedonian Creed, and Constantinople. (The OT punishment laws does not apply for government, as political and Biblical Israel was judged in 70 AD as wrong and no longer in existence since 70 AD. Modern 1948 Israel is not Biblical Israel. The New Testament should have been the standard from Theodosius (380-392 AD) onward, but unfortunately they combined state government/politics and church together in a complete unity.
The disputes between the Monophysites/Miaphysites vs Byzantine Chalcedonian Creed enforcers was an internal conflict within the Byzantine Empire (and Persian Empire) which does not seem right for the Muslims to interfere with. After Umar and others conquered, the harsh applications of Jiziye, Dhimmi-ism, Sharia, death for apostasy, all together eventually wore down the populations to convert to Islam. One Islamic scholar (Yasir Qadhi) even seems to admit that most of the Abbasids (people of the Abbasid Caliphate and Dynasty in Baghdad) and later, the Ottomans (Uthmanieh) were the result of the Muslims conquering and killing all the men and taking the woman as sex slaves and wives. The subsequent offspring and generations seem to be the result of the wars and killing of the men and taking the women. see here for Yasir Qadhi’s lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEa-cM2lS_E
The problem with that (your answer) is that it does not explain all the connections to Surah 9:5, Surah 9:28-32, 8:39 and all the Hadith passages that explain the motivations for the Muslims attacks – “fight those who believe NOT in Allah, nor in the things that Allah forbids (pork, wine, icons, etc.)” and “I have been ordered to fight the people until there is no more fitna فتنه (rebellion, mutiny, confusion, chaos)” – and Muslim authorities interpret any kind of chaos and / or corruption (fesad فساد , fesq فسق ) as valid for them to attack, and the Hadiths that says “fight until religion is all for Allah” (Islam rules by Sharia law); and that Islam continued its aggressive conquering all throughout history until they were stopped by different groups in different areas and at different times. (Charles Martel – 722 AD – the battle of Tours) and the centuries of stopping the Muslims from conquering Constantinople, though eventually the Ottoman Turks did in 1453; and the European stopping the Muslim aggressions in 1600s (Battle of Vienna).
Also the letters of Muhammad to rulers of the different kingdoms/empires (Persia, Byzantine, etc.) seem to say “I invite you to Islam, if you submit you will be safe . . . ” If you don’t . . . the implication seems to be “will have divine authority to attack you”.
“Ken Temple says: Islam continued its aggressive conquering all throughout history until they were stopped by different groups in different areas and at different times.”
Qur’an verse Q.8, v.39 is one of earlier verses in Medinah’s epoch (earliest time of Islamic warfare) and interestingly it already talks about the ending of war “If they stop then Allah sees what they do”. Qur’an’s verses Q.8, v.30-31 vindicate Moslems from accusation of starting a war. Non-Moslems plotted the plan to discriminate, suppress and eradicate Moslems, even to expel, because they hate a possibility of domination of Sharia Laws over their life.
Moslems who know the pattern of Qur’anic themes would quickly understand the war-verse Q.8, v.39 is placed between 2 peace-verses Q.8, v.38 (if they stop Allah shall forgive their past sin) and Q.8, v.40 (if they stop Allah shall forgive their past sin).
The word “Fitnah” in the verse Q.8, v.39 has many meanings, but in the context of Caliphate era it is the action of belligerence, hostility, aggression against Moslems and our Non-Moslem allies.
Early Moslems did not, even never, attack an important Christian kingdom Ethiopia (being quite similar to today’s Vatican) and neighboring western Africans at that time because they were not hegemonic or hostile. Neither Arabs nor Non-Muslim allies get territorial threats or any aggression from them.
Also the letters of Prophet Muhammad to rulers of the different kingdoms are not sent to Ethiopia.
Correction. Also the typical letter (accept peace you will have peace) of Prophet Muhammad to rulers of the different kingdoms (Byzantium, Persia, and Egypt) is not sent to Ethiopia. Rather, it is another letter that has an appreciative tone, and a clear preaching style.
“ من محمد بن عبد الله إلى هرقل عظيم الروم: سلام على من اتبع الهدى، أما بعد فإنى أدعوك بدعوة الإسلام . أسلم تسلم ويؤتك الله أجرك مرتين ، فإن توليت فإن عليك إثم الأريسيِّين. و يا أهل الكتاب تعالوا إلى كلمة سواء بيننا وبينكم ألا نعبد إلا الله ،ولا نشرك به شيئا،ولا يتخذ بعضنا بعضا آربابا من دون الله فإن تولوا فقولوا اشهدوا بأنا مسلمون
In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful: (This letter is) from Muhammad son of Abdullah to Heraclius the Great of the Romans. Peace be upon him, he who follows the right path. Furthermore I invite you to establish peace; establish peace and you will have peace, and God will double your reward, and if you reject, you bear the sins of persecuting the Arians (Al-Ariyasiyyin). ‘And people of the scripture! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship none but God and that we associate nothing in worship with Him, and that none of us shall take others as Lords beside God. Then, if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims.’
The letter to Chosroes II is similar except that it refers to Magians instead of the Arians.
To the king of Ethiopia
كتاب رسول الإسلام صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى النجاشي
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم من محمد رسول الإسلام إلى النجاشى ملك الحبشة: سلام عليك إنى أحمد الله إليك ،الله الذي لا إله إلا هو الملك القدوس السلام المؤمن المهيمن، وأشهد أن عيسى بن مريم روح الله وكلمته ألقاها إلى مريم البتول الطيبة الحصينة، فحملت بعيسى فخلقه الله من روحه كما خلق آدم بيده، وإنى أدعوك وجنودك إلى الله عز وجل، وقد بلغت ونصحت فاقبلوا نصحى، والسلام على من اتبع الهدى
In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful: From Muhammad the Prophet of Islam to the Negus, the king of Ethiopia: peace be on you, I thank God for you, The God, there is no God but him, the King, the Holy, the Guardian, and I witness that Jesus, the son of Mary is the Spirit of God and His Word. The Word he gave to the pure the believer Mary, and from this Word she gave birth to Jesus. God made Jesus from his Spirit just as he made Adam from his hand. I invite you and your soldiers to believe the God the Almighty. I wrote and advised you, so accept my advise. Peace upon those who follow the right way.
I have read the Hadith sections of those letters and they seem different than what you have ( in some aspects). Can you give precise reference and all the references for those? (Hadiths, Sira, and Tarikh of Al Tabari) ?
[Za’d Al-Ma’ad 3/60]
“In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad the Messenger of Allâh to Negus, king of Abyssinia (Ethiopia). Peace be upon him who follows true guidance. Salutations, I entertain Allâh’s praise, there is no god but He, the Sovereign, the Holy, the Source of peace, the Giver of peace, the Guardian of faith, the Preserver of safety. I bear witness that Jesus, the son of Mary, is the spirit of Allâh and His Word which He cast into Mary, the virgin, the good, the pure, so that she conceived Jesus. Allâh created him from His spirit and His breathing as He created Adam by His Hand. I call you to Allâh Alone with no associate and to His obedience
and to follow me and to believe in that which came to me, for I am the Messenger of Allâh. I invite you and your men to Allâh, the Glorious, the All-Mighty. I hereby bear witness that I have communicated my message and advice. I invite you to listen and accept my advice. Peace be upon him who follows true guidance.”
What is that? – [Za’d Al-Ma’ad 3/60] – is that any of the six official collections of Hadith?
What is the reference? (for example Sahih Muslim, 2:3:5 or Sunan Abu Dawood 5:21:34, etc. or Tirmidi 34, 3
what is the Haddith reference to the one that says that Heraclius persecuted the Arians?
for example Sahih Al Bukhari 1:2:3 – give the references – for the lettters.
So that I can find them here:
http://sunnah.com/
or Al Tabari, page 25, etc.
Ibn Ishaq, page 100, etc.
What is that? – [Za’d Al-Ma’ad 3/60] – is that any of the six official collections of Hadith?
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_letters_to_the_Heads-of-State#cite_note-6
The text of the letter to Heraclius: At-Tabari, Tarikh al-umam wal-muluk.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zad_al-Ma%27ad
Zad al-Ma’ad (Arabic: زاد المعاد) is a book, translated as Provisions of the Hereafter, written by the Islamic scholar Ibn al-Qayyim on the subject of sira. [1][2]
://archive.org/details/ZadAlMaad-IbnulQayyim
The letters to Shah of Persia Khosrow, and to Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, are also in the Hadith – and they are different from the ones you put up.
At least I never noticed the word “Arians” before in the letter to Heraclius.
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/1/7
The Muslim translators don’t agree with your “Arians”
Here is part of that Hadith. (cut for space)
“The contents of the letter were as follows: “In the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad the slave of Allah and His Apostle to Heraclius the ruler of Byzantine. Peace be upon him, who follows the right path. Furthermore I invite you to Islam, and if you become a Muslim you will be safe, and Allah will double your reward, and if you reject this invitation of Islam you will be committing a sin by misguiding your Arisiyin (peasants). (And I recite to you Allah’s Statement:)
‘O people of the scripture! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship none but Allah and that we associate nothing in worship with Him, and that none of us shall take others as Lords beside Allah. Then, if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims (those who have surrendered to Allah).’ (3:64).”
(embolding my emphasis)
Modern Arab’s translators just make the meaning of Arisiyin as what we know as “Arians”.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ar&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alarabiya.net%2Fviews%2F2006%2F02%2F07%2F20914.html&edit-text=&act=url
كما وجدنا في ‘فتح الباري بشرح صحيح البخاري’ لابن حجر العسقلاني (كتاب التفسير) ما نصه: ‘···وحكى غيره أن الأريسيين ينسبون إلى عبدالله بن أريس: رجل كانت النصارى تعظمه ابتدع في دينهم أشياء مخالفة لدين عيسى(···)
We review the different our sources taken note that ‘the tongue of the Arabs’ said among the last thing mentioned in connection with this word, saying: ‘It was: They are the followers of Abdullah bin Arius’ · We also found in the ‘Fath-Bari explained Sahih Bukhari’ to the son of Hajar Asqalani (Book of Interpretation) reads: ‘··· and told others that Arisiyin attributed to Abdullah bin Arius: A man was Christians venerated invented in their religion things contrary to the religion of Jesus (···)
The word “Areesiyyeen” ( الاریسیین ) – or “Yareesiyyeen” according to other narrations – was reported to have only been mentioned in the letter that was sent to Hiraql. Scholars of Hadeeth and linguists have provided different views regarding the meaning of this word. According to the preponderant view, it is a plural form whose single means the peasant, the servant and the hired person.
plus, your translation has “the sin of persecuting the Arians”, but the others say “the sin of mis-guiding the peasants”.
big difference
“Ken Temple says:plus, your translation has “the sin of persecuting the Arians”, but the others say “the sin of mis-guiding the peasants”.”
You have no any source or scholarly works that may prove translating Arisiyin with Arians is wrong.
“Islam web” – a Muslim site, says that “misguiding the peasants” is the predominant view.
http://www.islamweb.net/womane/printarticle.php?id=158237&lang=E
But they also say that some Islamic scholar try to make the case that it was about the Arians. The scholar speaks of the Arians belief in the Oneness of God and the prophethood and humanity of Jesus.
A big problem is that the original Arians did not believe Jesus was only a prophet and only a man. They believed he was created long ago as the first creature, a spiritual creature, by God, and then God make everything else through him. They believed he had some kind of angelic/spiritual existence before creation; and they also called Jesus “The Son of God”; they only denied His full Deity and eternal existence into the past. The Arians said, “There was a time in the past when the Son did not exist”. This is much different than the Islamic Jesus and much different than what those Islamic scholars say when they try to make the case that the narration/hadith is about the Arians.
It seems to me that if it was really about Arians, the Arabic would have been this:
الاریوسیین
not
الاریسیین
Furthermore, you need to show the words “persecuting” and / or “misguiding” – I don’t see them in the sentence. (from the the one from Sahih Al Bukhari below at Sunna.com) That is a big difference between the two concepts “persecuting” or “misguiding”.
I see the word for “peasants” (or your claim of Arians), and the word for sin, اثم but, can you point to the words for “misguiding” and/or “persecuting” ? take more of the context if you like, the link is there.
يُؤْتِكَ اللَّهُ أَجْرَكَ مَرَّتَيْنِ، فَإِنْ تَوَلَّيْتَ فَإِنَّ عَلَيْكَ إِثْمَ الأَرِيسِيِّينَ وَ
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/1/7
“Ken Temple says: Arians said, “There was a time in the past when the Son did not exist”. This is much different than the Islamic Jesus and much different than what those Islamic scholars say when they try to make the case that the narration/hadith is about the Arians.”
From evidence of Ibn Ishaq in Sirat Rasul Allah, there’s possibility that it is Arians of Arabia who wrote Injil of Yuhannis, and their Arabian version of Arianism rejects divinity of Comforter, hence it is more monotheistic or even more Islamic than the original Arianism.
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, A. Guillaume.
It is extracted from what John [Yuhannis] the apostle set down for them when he wrote the Gospel for them from the Testamant of Jesus Son of Mary: ‘He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not had sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the word that is in the Law must be fulfilled, ‘They hated me without a cause’ (ie. without reason). But when the Comforter [Munahhemana] has come whom God will send to you from the Lord’s presence, and the spirit of truth [ruhu`l-qist] which will have gone forth from the Lord’s presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that you should not be in doubt.’
“The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the Paraclete [Albaraqlitis ]”
On defense of the the Gospel according to John – refutes your argument about Arianism.
Earliest Islamic Biographer of Muhammad’s life affirms that John the apostle of Jesus and eyewitness of the crucifixion and resurrection was the human writer of the fourth Gospel.
This also defends the Gospel according to John
Respected and inspiring Moslems who debate Sam Shamoun and other Christian apologists on Ibn Ishaq’s Sira have very excellent arguments from so many angles of perspective, so I just add and share a bit inspiration from different angle, that is from the content of Sira itself.
Sam Shamoun and Christian apologists have stagnancy in their argument. It would be very regretful for them if they realise how their use of Ibn Ishaq’s record of Arabic Injil of Yuhannis has rather incurred a backlash that proves a variant reading between Arabic Injil and Greek Gospel of John.
It must be very disheartening for Sam and others to face a great disappointment from their apologist colleagues around the world who certainly blame them for giving a very potent resource of Ibn Ishaq’s Sira which utterly disapproves their Greek Gospel.
So, why don’t you debate him on the subject?
“Ken Temple says: So, why don’t you debate him on the subject?”
I don’t want to humiliate him directly in debate. It must be very disheartening for him to realise his use of Sira has revealed corruption of the Bible.
Another rebuttal for Sam Shamoun: Does God Swear By His Creation or Doesn’t He?
Yes he does.
Deut 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Deut 4:26
I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.
Tanachic Prophets:
Gen 42:15
By the life of Pharaoh, ye shall not go forth hence, except your youngest brother come hither.
Deut 31:28
Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.
Song 2:7
I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please.
Song 3:5
I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please.
Paul of Tarsus swears by the elect angels.
1Tim 5:21
I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
Gill’s Notes on the Bible
Jewish canons (Misn. Shebuot, c. 4. sect. 13), which say,”They that swear בשמים, “by heaven”, and by earth, are free.” Upon the words in Song of Solomon 2:7, “I adjure you”, it is asked (Shirhashirim Rabba, fol. 10. 4), “by what does she adjure them? R. Eliezer says, by the heavens, and by the earth; by the hosts, the host above, and the host below.”
So Philo the Jew says (De Special. leg. p 770) that the most high and ancient cause need not to be immediately mentioned in swearing; but the “earth”, the sun, the stars, “heaven”, and the whole world.
So R. Aben Ezra, and R. David Kimchi, explain Amos 4:2. “The Lord God hath sworn by his holiness”; that is, say they, בשמים, “by heaven”: which may be thought to justify them, in this form of swearing; though they did not look upon it as a binding oath, and therefore if broken they were not criminal (Maimon. Hilch. Shebuot, c. 12. sect. 3). “He that swears בשמים by heaven, and by the earth, and by the sun, and the like; though his intention is nothing less than to him that created them, this is no oath.’
Anyone can say “I don’t want to humiliate him”, etc. – that is not a reason – let him be the one who decides – why don’t you challenge him? He seems more than willing to engage. Your excuse seems like a cop-out.
What is your name?
why do you go by θ ?
What kind of Muslim are you?
Sunni, Shia, Salafi, Sufi, Ahmadi, Ebadi, Alawi, ? (be more specific)
Are you a convert to Islam, after being raised in a Christian or western culture?
“Ken Temple says: Anyone can say “I don’t want to humiliate him”, etc. – that is not a reason – let him be the one who decides – why don’t you challenge him? He seems more than willing to engage. Your excuse seems like a cop-out.”
As even Sam Shamoun can’t defend the inerrancy of Greek Bible from facts of textual variants in Greek manuscripts, certainly he can’t defend the same from textual difference in Arabic. It is so predictable. Sam and other Trinitarian apologists have been pwned so badly by many debaters, particularly in the topics of Biblical corruption, and I don’t want to make him look foolish and ashamed with his own great blunder of using Ishaq’s Sira which turns out proving the difference between Injil and Gospel.
Pingback: The World’s Most Persecuted Religous Minority: Christians | Apologetics and Agape
Apart from the ceremonial wedding and strict Monogamy, the Christian Bible has no technical regulation whatsoever in marriage:
(i) There’s no mutual consent (slave or woman can’t refuse a forced sex)
(ii) There’s no age-barrier.
(iii) There’s no sin to have sex during the menses.
(iv) There’s no prohibition of anal with wife.
(v) There’s no male and female purification after sex.
(vi) There’s no difference between prepubescence and post-pubescence.
(vii) There’s no dowry.
(viii) There’s no Iddah (Waiting period) for a widow to remarry again.
(ix) There’s no regulation and calculation for the sharing of inheritance.
A wife should just enjoy to get beaten on the cheek:
Mt 5:39
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
An attractive slave can’t say no in a forced marriage after a month:
Dt 21:13
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
A man’s debt can make his marriage null and void. Marriage is not sacrosanct, it is not a sacred bond. The poor wife and daughters can ended up to be the sex slaves for her husband’s creditors.
By dealing his marriage with slavery (Slave Market and rapeing) a debtor finds his solution.
Mt 18:25
But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
In Islam:
Marriage is a mutual consent:
Nasa’i Vol. 4, Book 26, Hadith 3365
It was narrated that Salamah bin Al-Muhabbaq said: The Prophet passed judgment concerning a man who had intercourse with his wife’s slave woman: If he forced her, then she is free, and he has to give her mistress a similar slave as a replacement; if she obeyed him in that, then she belongs to him, and he has to give her mistress a similar slave as a replacement.
Nasa’i Vol. 4, Book 26, Hadith 3366
It was narrated from Salamah bin Al-Muhabbaq that a man had intercourse with a slave woman belonging to his wife, and was brought to the Messenger of Allah. He said: If he forced her, then she is free at his expense and he has to give her mistress a similar slave as a replacement. If she obeyed him in that, then she belongs to her mistress, and he has to give her mistress a similar slave as well.
Annulment of marriage of a wife doesn’t happen because of slavery.
Tabaqat, 8:1554; Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 140.
Ibn Abbas narrated: Muhammad proposed to Safiyya Bint Bashama Ibn Nadhla al-`Anbari, who was taken captive. The Messenger of God gave her the choice and said, Whom do you desire: me or your husband? She said, Nay, my husband, So he sent her away and Banu Tamim cursed her.
The word Mut’a (temporary marriage) is almost synonymous to the word Awtas in the mindset of Non-Moslem polemicists. The marriage of Mut’ah of Awtas is a proof that there’s no rape of captives whatsoever in Islamic warfare.
Q.5, v.87. O you who believe, Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.
Bukhari, Vol 7, Book 62, Hadith 130.
Narrated Abdullah: We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah’s Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said: Shall we get ourselves castrated? He forbade us that and then allowed us to * marry * women with a temporary contract and recited to us: O you who believe, Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.
حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، عَنْ قَيْسٍ، قَالَ قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ كُنَّا نَغْزُو مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَلَيْسَ لَنَا شَىْءٌ فَقُلْنَا أَلاَ نَسْتَخْصِي فَنَهَانَا عَنْ ذَلِكَ ثُمَّ رَخَّصَ لَنَا أَنْ نَنْكِحَ الْمَرْأَةَ بِالثَّوْبِ، ثُمَّ قَرَأَ عَلَيْنَا {يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لاَ تُحَرِّمُوا طَيِّبَاتِ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ وَلاَ تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لاَ يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ}.
Arabic: An nankiha almar-atan (to marry a woman).
Bukhari, Vol 7, Book 62, Hadith 139.
Narrated Abdullah: We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said: Shall we castrate ourselves? But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to * marry * a woman by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you.
حَدَّثَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ عَوْنٍ، حَدَّثَنَا خَالِدٌ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، عَنْ قَيْسٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، رضى الله عنه قَالَ كُنَّا نَغْزُو مَعَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَلَيْسَ مَعَنَا نِسَاءٌ فَقُلْنَا أَلاَ نَخْتَصِي فَنَهَانَا عَنْ ذَلِكَ، فَرَخَّصَ لَنَا بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ أَنْ نَتَزَوَّجَ الْمَرْأَةَ بِالثَّوْبِ، ثُمَّ قَرَأَ {يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لاَ تُحَرِّمُوا طَيِّبَاتِ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ }
Arabic: An natazawwaja almar-atan (to wed a woman).