Islam and the Issue

of Violence
From the Kharijites to ISIS

By

Mostafa Tabatabaie
Translated by Saleh Tabatabaie
“Had you been severe and
harsh hearted, they would
have deserted you.“
Qur’an , sura 3, 159
Content
Introduction ..................................................................... 4
Mercy unto All Creatures ............................................. 7
Qur’an and Leniency .................................................. 7
The Prophet’s Magnanimity ................................. 10
Kharijites (Dissenters) The initiators of the
Excommunication of Muslims .................................21
The Crime of Killing Children............................. 25
Violence in the Umayyad Period ............................ 28
“Obligatory” Oath of Fealty to Yazid .................. 34
The Leniency of Mu’āwīya II and Marwān’s
Violence ....................................................................... 37
Islam and Persians ..................................................... 41
The Culture of Violence ............................................. 44
The Issue of Jizya ...................................................... 48
Violent dealings with Other Muslim sects........ 49
The Islamic Code of Law and Violence ................ 56
The Question of the Excommunication of
Muslims .......................................................................... 60
Jihad and Violence ....................................................... 67
Answers to Objections ................................................ 70
References ...................................................................... 82
 Introduction

There have been thinkers who have categorically rejected

violence affirming that nothing can excuse the use of violence.
For example, towards the end of his life, Leo Tolstoy (1828-
1910) came to this belief relying on the Christian teachings that
are stated in Matthew (5: 39-41):

“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. And if any man will sue thee at the
law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with
him twain. “

Tolstoy comments on the biblical teachings as follows

“Resist not evil” means never resist, never oppose

violence; or, in other words, never do anything
contrary to the law of love. If anyone takes advantage
of this disposition and affronts you, bear the affront,
and do not, above all, have recourse to violence. (My
Religion, 9)

Obviously, he accepts the teachings in general and absolute

terms and considers them as the only way to redeem humanity.
However, it seems clear that a superfluity of forbearance is not
always redemptive: in conformity with the literal meanings of
the general teachings, one is bound to let oppressors and even
criminals go free with impunity. This can be self-defeating
since it takes away the rights of the oppressed and eventually
promotes violence.

Accordingly, other Western thinkers are opposed to the

generality of such teachings and their practicality, as Jean-
Jacques Rousseau writes in his Social Contracts: “Christianity is a
totally spiritual religion, uniquely concerned with heavenly
4
matters. The Christian’s homeland is not of the world” (IV: viii,
126).

One may even tend to say that Matthew’s Gospel either missed
the exact context of Jesus’ Sermon or reported it exaggeratedly;
hence the Gospel did not convey his teachings truthfully. In
any case, although extreme forbearance is not socially
justifiable, excessive violence is far worse in that it is more
destructive to the individual’s character and has more harmful
impacts on society.

From the Islamic perspective, the principles of mercy and

tolerance are of paramount importance since they do not allow
violence to take over and become deeply entrenched in Islamic
society. This does not mean that all the penal code should be
suspended because the just punishment of criminals is in its
turn considered as mercy to society; justice and mercy do not
negate each other.

In this treatise, with examples from Qur’an and Prophet

Muhammad’s traditions and his attitudes towards friends and
foes, we will illustrate that forgiveness, clemency and leniency
prevail in Islam which destroys the bases of violence and
harshness as the only measures to provide security in society.
Here we will also recount how harshly some Islamic sects have
behaved towards other Muslims; this will cast light on how the
extremists pursue harsh, violent judgments to declare other
Muslims as unbelievers. The very fact explains why the Prophet
was so anxious about Muslims’ future when, in his last
pilgrimage to Mecca (the Farewell Pilgrimage), he enjoined
them:

“O people! Listen to my words for I do not know

whether I will ever meet you in this place after this
year. O people! Surely, your blood and property are
inviolable until you meet your Lord,” (Ibn Hishām,
vol. 4, 206).

5
It is so regrettable that some Muslim groups have invented
excuses for killing other Muslims by labelling them as
unbelievers, and thus they made Islam, the religion of mercy
and justice, be depicted for outsiders as a religion of mere
violence. Is there any light at the end of this dark tunnel?

Mostafa Tabatabaie

6
 Mercy unto All Creatures

Addressing Prophet Muhammad, Qur’an says, “We have not

sent you but as mercy unto all creatures” (21:107). It should be
noted that the Quranic verse does not simply say that he has
been sent as mercy to all creatures, but it says that he has NOT
been sent BUT as mercy to them, that is to say, his divine
mission does not essentially conforms to violence as a
predominant principle; in his religion, violence is considered
accidental and an unfortunate necessity.

Now let’s see how this widespread mercy to all people was
made manifest in the Prophet’s life. To this end, we need first
to start with Qur’an to learn how emphatically it recommends
forgiveness and leniency to the Prophet. Then, we will invoke
books of history and biography to illustrate his behaviours
towards his friends and foes.

Qur’an and Leniency

In Qur’an, we read:

It is by the mercy of Allah that you dealt gently with

them (i.e. the Prophet’s followers). Had you been
severe and harsh-hearted, they would have deserted
you. Therefore, pardon (their faults) and ask for
(Allah’s) forgiveness for them; and consult with them
on the issues; then when you (finally) reach a
decision, put your trust in Allah. Allah loves those
who put their trust in Him. (3: 159)

One of the important points that the Qur’anic verse implies is

that even if a prophet, with his high spiritual position, is harsh
and hardhearted, he will be expected to be abandoned by his
followers, let alone those who are totally lacking

in such a position and wish to gather people to establish their

rule through cruelty and violence. One may ask rhetorically:

7
How long did Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf’s bloody, brutal rule last? 1
“Lasting rule only belongs to Wisdom, neither to a tyrant nor
to a man of bloodlust,” as an Arab poet puts it 2.

The aforesaid Qur’anic verse implies the Prophet’s kindness

and mercy towards the believers, as another verse rephrases it:

Now a messenger (i.e. the Prophet) has come to you

from amongst yourselves; it grieves him to see what
distresses you; he is extremely caring for you; to the
believers, he is kind and merciful. (9:128)

Yet, Qur’an does not restrict the Prophet’s pardon and kindness
to his followers; sometimes the holy book does not withhold
his forgiveness even from his perfidious enemies as it tells him
about the Jews in Medina:

You will not cease to find them, except a few, ever bent
on treacheries, but forgive them and spare them from
your rebuke for Allah loves those who do good deeds.
(5: 13)

Two points should be noted here: Firstly, this Qur’anic verse is

part of a chapter (sura) which was revealed to the Prophet in
Medina towards the end of his life, that is, when he was at the
peak of his sovereignty. Secondly, in addition to instructing the
Prophet to forgive the Jews, Qur’an even instructs him to spare
them from his rebuke since the Arabic root safḥ conveys the
very meaning, as the noted lexicographer Rāghib Isfahānī in his
book On Odd Qur’anic Words writes, “Safḥ means to cease to
reproach somebody for doing something wrong, and this
meaning is more telling than forgiveness (‘afw)” (282).

1 The translator’s note: Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf (661–714) was the most notorious governor who served

the Umayyad Caliphate. Ḥajjāj's tyrannical 20-year rule over Iraq is well known in history.

2 The translator’s note: The line is from a poem by Badawī Al-Jabal (1907–1981), a Syrian
contemporary poet.

8
Above and beyond this directive, Qur’an at times instructs the
Prophet to return people’s misdeeds with good so as to
transform their enmity to friendship, as it states:

Good deeds and evil deeds are not equal. Return (the
evil ones) with what is better, then you will find the
person between whom and you there exists enmity
will be as if he were your intimate friend. (41:34)

This Qur’anic instruction is not peculiar to the Prophet, but it

is directed to his true followers as well:

For those who patiently preserve, seeking the

countenance of their Lord, establish regular prayers,
give secretly and openly out of what We have
provided them, and repel evil with good, there exists
glorious destiny in the (eternal) home. (13:22)

Qur’an also states:

Let them (i.e. the Muslims) forgive and spare (the

guilty people) from rebuke; do you not wish that
Allah should forgive you? Allah is oft-forgiving and
merciful (24:22).

Similarly, Qur’an instructs the Prophet to treat with

consideration and consolation the captives who are most likely
to have killed Muslim during the war:

O Prophet! Say to those who are captives in your hand:

“If Allah finds any good in your hearts, He will give
you something better than what has been taken from
you, and He will forgive you for Allah is oft-forgiving
and merciful” (8: 70).

Ironically, some of these captives were from a tribe who used

to torture or kill Muslims in the past.

The Qur’anic verses which state such high standards of humane

treatment and virtuous qualities are not limited to the

9
examples mentioned above, but, for our purpose they suffice.
Therefore, we proceed to give examples from books of history
and biography so as to illustrate the Prophet’s graceful
treatment of his enemies in particular.

The Prophet’s Magnanimity

Subsequent to their victories, the world’s radical revolutions
have usually been followed by periods of horrifying bloodshed.
By studying the histories of the Russian and French
revolutions, one can see the full extent of violence and vendetta
following their victories. In the Russian revolution, for
instance, Tsar Nicholas II, despite his resignation, and his
family of the House of Romanov, including his thirteen-year-
old son, were all killed by firing squad. Their bodies, then, were
doused in sulfuric acid and dumped in a pit (Massie, 3-24).

In the great revolution of Muhammad which reached its

triumphant zenith with the conquest of Mecca, it was mostly
expected that, in retaliation for the crimes which had been
committed by the idolaters of Quraish against the Muslims and
in revenge for the Battle of Uḥud, 3 he should have taken very
harsh action against Quraish. That is why, according to
Wāqidī’s narrative in his book, Kitāb al-Maghāzī (the military
campaigns of Prophet Muhammad), Sa’d ibn ‘Ubāda of Khazraj,
the Muslim army’s standard-bearer, as he entered Mecca,
shouted: “Today is the day of bloodshed; today inviolability is
removed; today Quraish is humiliated by Allah.” However,
after this news had reached the Prophet, he announced, “Today
is the day of mercy; today Allah shows his regard to Quraish.”
Then, he immediately removed Sa’d from his position as the
standard-bearer and gave the standard to Sa’d’s son, Qais ibn
Sa’d (vol. 2, 821). According to Ṭabarī and Ibn Hishām, he gave

3 The translator’s note: The Battle of Uḥud was fought between a force from the Muslim
community of Medina led by Prophet Muhammad and a force led by Abū Sufyān ibn Ḥarb
from Mecca at the foot of Mount Uḥud on March 23, 625. With a breach of the Prophet’s orders
by the Muslim archers, who left their assigned posts, the battle was doomed to be a defeat for
the outnumbered Muslims, as they incurred greater losses than the Meccans. Yet, the Meccans
failed to achieve their strategic aim of destroying the Prophet and his followers.

10
the standard to Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib (Ibn Hisham, vol. 2, 407;
Ṭabarī, vol.2, 56). Afterwards, the Prophet stood by the door of
Kaaba addressing Quraish:

“O people of Quraish! Allah has taken away from you

the arrogance of (Pre-Islamic) ignorance and the
proud boast of lineage. Man is from Adam, and Adam
is from dust.”

Then he recited the Qur’anic verse:

O mankind! We have created you from a male and a

female and made you in nations and tribes so that you
know one another. Verily, the most honored of you
with Allah is the one who has taqwā (i.e. piety). Allah is
omniscient and all-aware. (49:13)

He continued,

“O people of Quraish! What do you think that I will do

with you?” They replied, “Good, for you are a
magnanimous brother and the son of a magnanimous
brother.” He then said, “Go, for you are all free”
(Ṭabarī, vol. 3, 61; Ibn Hishām, vol. 2, 412).

Wāqidī’s narration in Kitāb al-Maghāzī is as follows:

As the Prophet came upon people who were sitting

tightly next to each other around Kaaba, he said,
“Praise is due to Allah, who has been sincere in His
promise and has given support to His servant. He
alone has vanquished the confederates (of the
enemies). What do you say and what do you think
(about my demeanor with you)?” The Meccans replied,
“We think highly of you for you are a magnanimous
brother and the son of a magnanimous brother,
coming to power.” Then the Prophet said, “I shall tell
you what my brother, Yūsuf (Joseph) said (to his guilty
brothers): ‘Today let no blame be on you. May God

11
 forgive you. He is the most merciful of those who are
merciful’ [Qur’an, 12:92].”

Wāqidī then quotes from the Prophet the very words which
have just been mentioned from Ibn Hishām’s the Biography of
the Prophet.

Is this humane treatment comparable to the violence

perpetuated by the world’s revolutionists after their victories?
One should ask whether such revolutionists as Lenin and Stalin
adopted a merciful approach to their enemies after victory or
they ordered mass killings with extreme brutality,
transgressing the accepted norms of morality and humanity.
Likewise, one should ask whether these so-called Muslims of
today who have started killing their Muslim brothers or other
innocent people and shelling their cities follow the Prophet or
they try to emulate Stalin or even Hitler.

Upon his triumph over the Meccans, the Prophet pardoned

even Abū Sufyān ibn Ḥarb, the leader of his enemies, and
Waḥshī, the killer of Ḥamza, the Prophet’s uncle. He also
pardoned those guilty people who showed remorse for doing
their crimes. However, there are only a few people who were
executed for their remorseless murders after Mecca’s conquest.
One of them was Abdullah ibn Khaṭal, whom the Prophet had
sent, along with an assistant from Bani Khuzā’a, to collect alms
and annual taxes (zakāt). In the course of the trip, Ibn Khaṭal
had ordered the other man to prepare some food for him and
gone to sleep. But when he had woken up, he had seen the man
sleeping. Out of his anger and arrogance, he had killed the
sleeping man. Then, he had reneged and joined the polytheists
of Mecca, becoming an apostate. To add insult to injury, he had
then recited verses abusing the Prophet, and he had had his two
songstresses sing the verses whenever his guests would gather
with him to drink wine. After Mecca was conquered by the
Muslims, he neither came to seek the Prophet’s pardon nor
expressed any regret. Inevitably, he was sentenced to death in
retribution for his crime (Wāqidī, vol. 2, 859).

12
Thus, he was the prophet of mercy who neither desisted from
righteousness and justice in his victory nor withheld
benevolence from his enemies upon his defeat. As both Qāzī
‘Iyāz Maghribī in his Kitāb Al-Shifā bi Ta’rīf Huqūq Al- Mustafā
and Muslim in his Saḥīḥ cite, when he was injured and had his
front teeth broken in the Battle of Uḥud, his companions asked
him to curse the Meccan unbelievers and to invoke Allah to
punish them, he replied, “I was not sent as a curse but as a
mercy” (Qāzī ‘Iyāz, vol. 1, 82; Muslim, vol. 4, 2007). The prophet
not only declined to curse them, but, according to Al-Ghazzālī
in Ihyā’ Ulūm al- Dīn, he also prayed for them: “O’ Allah! Guide
my people for they are ignorant” (vol. 3, 201).

Sharqāwī writes in his Fath al-Mubdī that after Thamāma ibn

Uthāl, a chieftain of Banu Hanīfa in Al-Yamamah, had come to
Medina and embraced Islam, he swore that from then on he
would not sell wheat to the people of Mecca unless the Prophet
should instruct him to do so. Upon his return to Al-Yamamah,
he ordered his people to withhold supplies from the Meccans.
The boycott gradually began to have effect and became more
and more stringent. Thereupon, they wrote to the Prophet,
asking him to instruct Thamāma to resume sending them what
they needed. Despite their animosity towards the Prophet,
especially in the Battle of Uḥud where they had killed his close
companions and injured him, he sent a letter to Thamāma
instructing him to lift the boycott and resume supplies to
Mecca, and Thamāma did so (vol. 3, 201).

The Prophet forbade the assassination of the adversaries (in

Arabic, ‘fatk’ meaning ‘to kill someone by surprise while he or
she is unaware of the danger’), as this is explicit in his hadiths
(i.e. traditions based on reports of the sayings and activities of
the Prophet). As the head of the state, if he ordered the
execution of someone, it was only because the person either
had murdered an innocent Muslim or had incited Arab tribes
to war against Muslims, as Ka’b ibn Ashraf did (see Wāqidī, vol.
1, 184; also see Ibn Hishām, vol. 2, 51, and Ṭabarī, vol. 2, 488),

13
because this was tantamount to the declaration of war on the
Muslim state.

Ṭabarī, in his History reports that the Prophet said, “Faith exerts
restraint on fatk (i.e. killing someone by surprise while he or she
is unaware of the danger); no believer commits fatk” (vol. 5,
363).

Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal in his Musnad reports that once Mu’āwīya

ibn Abī Sufyān came from Shām (today Syria) to Medina
during his rule and stopped in to see Aisha, the Prophet’s wife,
in her house. Since Aisha’s brother, Muhammad ibn Abū Bakr,
had been killed by Mu’āwīya’s followers, she pointedly asked
him;

“Are you not alarmed to discover that I have had a

man wait in ambush (behind the screen) to kill you
by surprise?” Mu’āwīya replied readily, “You never
make such an attempt on my life since I have entered
a safe house and I heard the Prophet say, ‘Faith exerts
restraint on fatk; no believer commits fatk’ ” (vol. 4,
92).

This instruction is in perfect harmony with the explicit, literal

meaning of the Qur’anic verse: “…Therefore, if they withdraw
from you, do not fight you, and wish to call a truce with you,
Allah has opened NO way for you against them” (4:90).
Accordingly, if the adversaries of Islam have no fighting with
Muslims, Allah has left no way for Muslims to use violence
against them.

Ya’qubī’s History, which predates Ṭabarī’s History, refers to non-

Muslim Arab tribes, such as Banī Mudlaj, Banī Zamra and Banī
Dīl, who used to say that they had no fighting with Muslims,
addressing the Prophet that “We are neither with you nor
against you.” The Prophet prohibited Muslims from fighting
them (vol. 2, 73). This prohibition was in accordance with the
abovementioned Qur’anic verse.

14
Therefore, the Muslims would fight only against those who
initiated aggression against them, as the Qur’an says: “Will you
not fight the people who breached their treaties, set out to expel
the Prophet, and aggressively confronted you first?” (9:13). With
all this, whenever the enemy was disposed to peace, the
Prophet welcomed it to suggest that his only concern was the
defense of his people and that he was not a warmonger, as
Qur’an instructs him:

“If the enemy shows willingness towards peace, show

your willingness towards it and put your trust in Allah.
Verily, He is the All-hearing and the Omniscient” (8:
61).

For this reason, we observe in history that the Prophet signed a

truce with the idolaters of Mecca at Hudaibīya, and, in
accordance with the agreement, he asked the Muslim refugees
who fled from Mecca to seek asylum in Medina to return to
Mecca (see Ibn Kathīr, vol. 3, 79-80).

However, according to the books of Islamic traditions (sunan),

when a group had declared war on the Muslim state and the
Prophet sent in an army to confront them in a battle, he would
advise his army with such words:

“Move forward in the name of Allah and by His help

and on the path of His Apostle. Do not kill any old
men, any children, or any women. Do not betray one
another in spoils, but rather bring them together. Put
(the issues) right and do good deeds, for Allah loves
those who do good deeds” (Abū Dāvūd, vol. 2, 382).

After fighting and winning a victory over the warlike enemy,

the Prophet often set the captives free or negotiate with the
enemy about the captives’ freedom whether in exchange for
the Muslim captives or by receiving a ransom for their release,
as stated in Qur’an:

15
 “…until you have completely defeated them. And then
bind them as captives whom you either set free as a
favor afterwards or let be redeemed, until the war lays
down its burdens (i.e. terminates)” (47: 4).

The number of the captives who were pardoned and released

by the Prophet is so great that space does not permit the
citation of all of them. Ibn Hishām cites that only after the
battle with Hawāzin, “there were six thousand captives,” (vol. 2,
488), but they were all freed by the Prophet, as the books of
history (tārīkh) and biography (sīra) are unanimous about this
(for example, see Wāqidī, vol. 2, 951; Ṭabarī, vol. 3, 87; Ibn
Hishām, vol. 2, 489).

The Prophet used to have pity even on animals. Abū Dāvūd in

his Book of Traditions (Sunan) quotes Abdullāh ibn Abbās as
saying that the Prophet forbade from inciting animals to fights
(as in dogfights and cockfights) (vol. 2, 367). How could then
such a noble character condone war between people? As
evidenced earlier by examples from Qur’an and history, in
Islam, war is considered to be an unfortunate necessity when
Muslims find themselves confronted by a warlike enemy.

Some Christian and Jewish orientalists have introduced Islam

as a religion of violence and war; it is as if their own religions
were far removed from violence. In response to their claim, we
should say that the Prophet and his companions, for a period
of thirteen years in Mecca, warned people of such false
traditions as polytheism, superstitions, and the crime of wa’d
(i.e. burying female infants alive), calling on them to worship
the only God. It was during this period that they experienced
considerable harm and torture at the hands of the Meccan
idolaters, as some of them, like Sumayya and Yāsir, ‘Ammār’s
parents, were killed under torture. The stories of these
gruesome tortures are recorded in the earliest book of the
Prophet’s biography (sīra), i.e. Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīra, and other books
such as Ṭabarī’s History (vol. 12, 327) and Ibn Kathīr’s History
(Kāmil al-Tawārīkh) (vol. 2, 45). Over all this period, neither the

16
Prophet nor his companions drew a sword on the Meccan
idolaters, but they only endured the terrible ordeal until a large
number of the Muslims were forced to flee Mecca, their
hometown. At last, the idolaters decided to kill the Prophet, but
the Prophet left his home at night and fled to Yathrib (Medina).
However, the Meccan idolaters of Quraish did not cease their
animosity towards the Prophet, and they wrote a threatening
letter to the people of Medina warning them if they did not kill
Muhammad or not banish him, Quraish would proceed to fight
them, as ‘Abdurrazzāq Ṣan’ānī has recorded in his early book,
Al-Muṣannaf, the letter which says,

“You have sheltered our fellow citizen (Muhammad)

in your town, and, among the people of Medina, you
are in a majority. We swear to Allah 4 if you do not kill
him or not banish him from your town, we will seek
assistance from Arab tribes against you; then we will
all storm into your town to kill your militant men and
to seize your women for ourselves” (vol. 5, 385).

It was under these circumstances that permission for armed

resistance was granted to the Muslims, as Qur’an says:

“Permission (to fight) is given to those believers

against whom war is waged since they have been
wronged, and Allah is the Omnipotent who aids them
with victory; they are those who have been expelled

4 The translator’s note: It is clearly known from the Qur’an (e.g. 29:61-5; 39:38) that many Pre-

Islamic Arabs believed in Allah as the ‘high god’ superior to the other deities whom they also
worshipped. Accordingly, these lesser deities were thought of as intermediaries between men
and the supreme god, Allah (39: 3; 10: 18). In some cases (e.g. Qur’an, 53:19-26), the deities seem
to have been regarded angels who were called God’s daughters and could intercede with Allah
on behalf of their worshippers (see Montgomery Watt, W. (2009). The Qur’ān and Belief in a
“High God”. Der Islam, 56(2), pp. 205-211). In his Literary History of the Arabs, Reynold A.
Nicholson thinks along the same lines: “They [i.e. the Pre-Islamic Arabs] believed vaguely in a
supreme God, Allah, and more definitely in his three daughters (al-Lāt, Manāt, and al-'Uzzā)
who were venerated all over Arabia and whose intercession was graciously accepted by Allah” (p.
135).

17
 from their homes unjustly for no reason other than
that they say, “Our Lord is Allah”…”(22:39-40)

Islam’s all battles with Quraish, which concluded with the

conquest of Mecca, went through these stages and proved to be
defensive in nature. Yet, as we have seen earlier, after his
victory over the Meccans, the Prophet condoned their past
wrongs and granted an amnesty for his enemies.

The Western legislators have also absolutely sanctioned

defensive war as opposed to offensive war. For example, the
famous French lawyer and political philosopher, Montesquieu
(1689 –1755) writes in his book, The Spirit of the Laws:

The life of governments is like that of man. The latter

has a right to kill in case of natural defense: the former
have a right to wage war for their own preservation. In
the case of natural defense I have a right to kill,
because my life is in respect to me what the life of my
antagonist is to him: in the same manner a state wages
war because its preservation is like that of any other
being. (bk. X, 155)

On the other hand, the orientalists’ assertion that war is banned

in Christianity or Judaism is totally wrong as this is clearly
against what their holy books tells us. The Old Testament is
explicit about the wars which Abraham and Moses had with
their enemies. For example, we read in the 14th chapter of the
Genesis:

And when Abram heard that his brother [i.e. his

brother’s son, Lot] was taken captive, he armed his
trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred
and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. And he
divided himself against them, he and his servants, by
night, and smote them, and pursued them unto
Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. And he
brought back all the goods, and also brought again his

18
 brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and
the people. (14-16)

We also read in the Numbers (31: 3) about Moses’ war against

the Midianites:

“And Moses spake unto the people, saying, ‘Arm some

of you unto the war, and let them go against the
Midianites, and avenge the Lord of Midian.’ ” 5
According to the Exodus (17:7-8), when Amalek came
to fight Israel in Rephidim, Moses orders Joshua to
“choose us out men, and go out, fight against Amalek.”

Similarly, Jesus did not have any misgivings about defensive

war, as, according to Luke (22:36), he said to his disciples, “He
that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
Clearly, swords did not do any good except for war or defense,
even though his disciples did not have a chance to use them
since they were outnumbered by their enemy. Nevertheless,
Jesus anticipated fighting between his followers and their close
relatives, as he said, according to Matthew (10: 34-36):

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I

came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to
set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law
against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be
they of his own household. “

Neither did the early Christians keep away from war; they
called their crusades against Muslims as “holy wars,” as Pope
Urban II (c. 1042 –1099) sanctioned the First Crusade (1095–

5According to the very chapter, Moses continues to enjoin his people to kill all Midian male
children and women: “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman that hath known man by lying with him” (17). Compare this with the Prophet’s
command to his army: “Do not kill any old men, any children, or any women” (Abū Dāvūd,
vol. 2, 382).

19
1099) and encouraged all Christians to take part in it. 6 One may
object that Urban II’s sanction has nothing to do with Jesus’
teachings and it does not bring discredit on Christianity as a
religion. Likewise, we argue that those cruel wars which broke
out at the hands of Arab or non-Arab leaders in the Muslim
world have nothing to do with the Prophet’s teachings since he
signed a peace treaty even with the belligerent idolaters and he
never initiated a war.

6 The translator’s note: The massacre that followed the capture of Jerusalem during the First
Crusade has attained particular notoriety. The eyewitness accounts from the crusaders
themselves leave little doubt that there was great slaughter: Muslims were indiscriminately
killed, and Jews who had taken refuge in their synagogue died when it was burnt down by the
Crusaders (e.g. see Tyerman, 157–159).

20
Kharijites (Dissenters) The initiators of
the Excommunication of Muslims

After the Prophet’s decease, disagreements arose among

Muslims, but they did not resort to fighting on the pretext of
declaring one another non-Muslims or accusing each other of
polytheism (shirk). The disagreements’ main focus was on
political issues, but the Muslim leaders warned people of the
likely dangers of disunity in the Muslim community (umma).
With his multiple merits, Imam Ali, in particular, insisted the
most on the unity of the Islamic umma, as he wrote in his letter:

“No one is more eager for the solidarity of

Muhammad’s umma than I am; and I seek God’s
reward for this endeavor” (Nahj al-Balāgha, the letter
no. 78).

The first dogmatic, violent group that broke up the solidarity

of the Islamic umma was the Kharijites who declared the other
Muslims unbelievers (kāfir) or polytheists (mushrik). Their
inception dates back to a civil war between the Iraqi army
(under Imam Ali’s leadership) and the Shāmi (Syrian) army
(under Mu’āwīya’s leadership). The Kharijites initially were
members of the Iraqi army, but they later rejected Ali’s
leadership after he agreed to arbitration with Mu’āwīya. Their
separation from Imam Ali’s army was under the pretext that
Imam Ali, according to them, had given way to man’s judgment
instead of God’s. Although Imam Ali had reluctantly accepted
the arbitration at their own insistence but rather with their own
threats, they said that they admitted to their fault, but they had
repented of what they had done.

In his discussion with the early Kharijites, Imam Ali pointed out
that he had resigned himself to the arbitration, as the Kharijites
themselves admitted to that, but he had agreed under the
condition that the arbiters had to make their rulings based on
Qur’an, or on the Prophet’s traditions, if they did find no
21
mention of the disputed issue in Qur’an; however, neither of
the two arbiters (i.e. Abū Mūsā ‘Ash’arī and ‘Amr ibn ‘Ăs) did
base their rulings on Qur’an or the Prophet’s traditions, but they
made their rulings at whim; therefore, their rulings were not
sound. Imam Ali’s terms and conditions had been stipulated in
the contract which Ṭabarī has cited in his History (vol. 5, 53).

These statements have been reported by such historians as

Ṭabarī, Ya’qūbī, Ibn Athīr, Dīnivarī, and Naṣr ibn Muzāḥim. For
example, Dīnivarī has cited Imam Ali’s words to the Kharijites
as follows:

Do you not know that I specified as a condition for the

arbiters that they had to make their ruling on the basis
of the sacred scripture (i.e. Qur’an)? Prior to that, I had
notified you that the Damascenes’ proposal for
arbitration had been deceptive and dishonest. Yet,
when you did not accept anything but arbitration, I
stipulated a provision that the two arbiters had to
accept what Qur’an accepts and to deny what Qur’an
denies. However, they disobeyed the sacred scripture
and the Prophet’s traditions and acted just as they
wished. Thus, we discarded their rulings, and, now, we
still hold fast to our original view. (208)

Imam Ali did not content himself with providing them with
such a convincing argument, but he also asked them to choose
a representative to hold a debate in their presence. They chose
Abdullah ibn Kawwā’ to be their leading exponent. At the end
of the debate, Ibn Kawwā’ asked Imam Ali, “Why did you agree
with Abū Mūsā’s arbitration, while he is an apostate?” Imam
asked, “When did Abū Mūsā become an apostate, in your
opinion? When I first sent him for arbitration, or when he made
his ruling?” Ibn Kawwā’ replied, “Of course, when he made his
ruling.” Then Imam Ali said, “You are saying that when I sent
him, he was still a Muslim, but, in your opinion, he became an
apostate later.” He continued, “If the Prophet had sent a Muslim
to unbelievers to preach monotheism and he later became an

22
apostate, calling upon them to worship false gods instead,
would the Prophet have been deserving blame for that?” Ibn
Kawwā’ answered in the negative, and Imam concluded, “Then
if Abū Mūsā has gone astray, why am I being blamed?
Moreover, is it fair that you put people to the sword for what
only Abū Mūsā should be blamed?” (Dīnivarī, 309).

According to Muslim historians, a large number of Kharijites

(about 8000) backed down after they had heard Imam Ali’s
argument. However, a smaller group (about 4000) persisted in
declaring other Muslims to be unbelievers and, accordingly,
opposed Imam Ali’s rule. However, in response to them, Imam
said:

We entitle you to have three rights as long as you are

in our company: We do not bar you from entering the
Mosques to say prayers; we do not deny you your
shares from the Treasury (bait al-māl) as long as your
hands are with ours; and we do not fight against you
until you commence fighting against us. (Ṭabarī, vol.
5, 73; Ibn Athīr, vol.3, 335)

This is how the Kharijites were allowed to live freely in Kufa

(the center of Imam Ali’s government) and were entitled to
have the same rights as the other Muslims used to have.
Nonetheless, they kept chanting anti-government slogans and
attending the great mosque of Kufa to let out “there is no
judgment except by Allah,” while Imam Ali was saying
congregational prayers or delivering sermons (Ibn Athīr, vol.3,
334). By this slogan, they meant to refer to the arbitration and
to condemn it as heresy and apostasy.

Shams al-Dīn Sarakhsi (d. around 490 A.H./1096), a renowned

jurist of the Ḥanafi school, relates in his Al-Mabsūṭ that once
Kathīr al-Ḥazramī entered the mosque of Kufa and saw five
men of the Kharijites saying spiteful things about Imam Ali. He
took one of them who had even sworn that he would kill Imam
Ali and brought him before Imam and said, “This man swore

23
in my presence that he would kill you.” Imam ordered him to
let the man go, but he objected, “How should I let him go after
he swore that he would kill you?” Imam said, “Should I punish
him for something he has not done yet?!” (vol. 10, 125). Indeed,
this was the extent of freedom that the Kharijites enjoyed
during Imam Ali’s rule. However, the zealous Kharijites ceased
neither to insult Imam nor to declare other Muslims to be
unbelievers despite the fact that Imam Ali and his followers
repeatedly had discussions with them about the issue of
arbitration, invoking several Qur’anic verses on it. 7

The Kharijites did not content themselves with verbal, blatant

opposition to Imam and the other Muslims, as they took up
arms and started killing those who disagreed with them. For
example, they killed Abdullah ibn Khabbāb, who was one of the
Prophet’s companions, and his pregnant wife. What were
Abdullah and his wife’s offences? They had asked Abdullah
some questions about the Prophet’s successors (khulafā) before
they asked him, “What do you say about Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib (i.e.
Imam Ali) before and after the arbitration?” Abdullah’s answer
to this question caused his death: “Ali is more conscious of God,
more observant for his faith, and more insightful than you are.”
Then, they took Abdullah to a nearby stream with his hands
tied behind his back and slew him, letting his blood pour into
the stream. They, then, went to his wife and, without
questioning, killed her, as the poor woman was crying, “I am a
woman; do you not fear Allah?” and they gave no heed to her
words (Ṭabarī, vol. 5, 82-83; Ibn Athīr, vol. 3, 342). That was
clearly against the Prophet’s explicit instructions that Muslims
must avoid killing women and children of unbelievers even in
the state of war- let alone women and children of Muslims in
the state of peace- as it is cited in Bukhārī’s Al-Ṣaḥīḥ that the
Prophet found a woman killed during one of his battles, and he
strictly forbade Muslims from killing women and children (vol.

7 See Tārīkh al-Jadal (The History of Polemics) by Muhammad Abū Zuhra, especially the

chapter of “Examples of the Kharijites’ polemics,” p. 141.

24
4, the chapter of “the merit of jihad,” 74). However, the
Kharijites killed the woman because she probably disagreed
with them over the issue of the arbitration. Moreover, it is a real
shock to discover that they self-righteously committed such
atrocious crimes, considering themselves as true, pious
Muslims. To illustrate their distorted view of piety, it suffices to
mention that once one of them picked up a date from the foot
of a tree and put it in his mouth. His Kharijite friend shouted at
him, “How dare you eat a date without the owner's consent?”
And he immediately spat it out (Ṭabarī, vol. 5, 82). What is
appalling is that they did not allow themselves to eat a dry date
without the owner's consent but at the same time they shed
innocent blood that is the most inviolable in Islam. That is how
Islamic norms and principles became distorted with them so
that eating a date without the owner's consent far outweighed
human’s life.

The Crime of Killing Children

‘Abd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī writes in his book, Al-Farq bain al-
Firaq (the differences between sects), about al-Azāriqa, a branch
of the Kharijites:

“They permitted killing their opponents’ women and

children, and they asserted that their children also
were unbelievers, doomed to suffer in Hell forever”
(102).

It is certain that such extreme, preposterous ideas are in conflict

with Qur’an, the Prophet’s traditions, and reason. We read in
Qur’an, “Turn truly your face towards the Faith, (that is,) Allah’s
essence of creation on the basis of which He has created
mankind” (30:30), as cited in a well-known hadith from the
Prophet: “Every newborn is born upon the natural disposition
(towards the Faith, i.e. belief in the only God)” (Muslim, vol. 4,

25
2048). 8 Ahmad ibn Ḥanbal cites in his Musnad that after the
Prophet forbade Muslims from killing children, some of his
companions told him, “But they are the unbelievers’ children.”
The Prophet replied, “Are the righteous men among you not
the children of unbelievers?” (vol. 3, 435). In brief, when the
Prophet forbade Muslims from killing the unbelievers’
children in wartime, as mentioned earlier, how could the
children be killed in peacetime?

However, finally, after the Kharijites had started killing

innocent people, Imam Ali had to fight against them in the
battle of Nahrawān.

To understand Imam Ali’s leniency- which reminds us of the

Prophet’s- in the battle against Kharijites, one should have a
look into Imam’s sermons (khutbas) delivered when he
encountered their army. In these sermons, Imam Ali did his
utmost to cleanse the Kharijites’ mindset of those excessive,
irrational ideas (see Ibn Athīr, vol. 3, 344). Then, he gave “the
safety flag” to one of the Prophet’s companions, i.e. Abū Ayyūb
al-Anṣārī, and he shouted, “Whoever comes under this flag will
be safe” (Ibn Athīr, vol. 3, 345; Dīnivarī, 210). By doing this, he
managed to split another group of the Kharijites off from the
rest, as one of the Kharijite chieftains, Farwa ibn Naufil, along
with five hundred horsemen, left the Kharijites’ army, saying to
his fellows, “I swear I do not know over what we are fighting
against Ali. I see fit to withdraw from the battle until I become
enlightened as to either fighting against Ali or following him”
(Ibn Athīr, vol. 3, 346).

Ṭabarī writes in his History that when the Kharijites’ army lined
up against Imam Ali’s army, poised to fight, Imam moved
toward them and stood in front of their front line calling upon
them to cease fighting. Even he repeatedly sent his emissaries

8The translator’s note: In other words, all Adam’s descendants metaphorically answered their
Lord’s question in the affirmative: “Am I not your Lord? They replied: ‘Yes!’ ” (Qur’an, 7: 172),
that is, all humans have intrinsic tendencies towards belief in the only God.

26
to their officers to invite them to stop fighting. However, they
turned down his offer and even murdered his emissary (vol. 5,
92). Nevertheless, Imam instructed his army not to fight them
until they start fighting (Dīnivarī, 210). Then, the Kharijites
shouted, “Judgment belongs only to Allah even though the
unbelievers might dislike it,” and attacked Imam Ali’s army.
Another group of them shouted, “Onwards towards the
Paradise!” and charged at Imam’s army. However, the rebellion
was entirely crushed soon, and the Kharijites fell prey to their
ignorance and misjudgment. Having defeated them, Imam Ali
ordered his followers, “Do not fight the Kharijites after me for
the one who seeks the truth but he is mistaken and the one who
seeks falsehood and obtained it are not alike” (Nahj al-Balāgha,
the sermon 61).

27
 Violence in the Umayyad Period

After ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affwān, the third caliph, was killed, Muslims
turned to Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib to take over the caliphate, but he
declined and said, “Leave me alone and seek someone else for
we are on the cusp of a multifaceted, multicolored state of
affairs to which neither hearts will hold fast nor minds stand
firm” (Ṭabarī, vol. 4, 434; Ibn Athīr, vol. 3, 193; compare this
with Nahj al-Balāgha, the sermon 92). Yet, Muslims kept
insisting on their request and asked, “Do you not observe our
circumstances? Do you not see what has become of Islam? Are
you not aware of Fitna (the civil strife)?” They continued
imploring him until he accepted their fealty. Nevertheless, a
few of the Prophet’s companions, including S’ad ibn Abī
Waqqāṣ, refused to swear fealty to him. When Imam Ali asked
S’ad to take an oath of fealty, he replied, “No! Until the majority
swear fealty to you, I will not do so, but I swear to God that you
will come to no harm from me.” Imam told the others to let
S’ad go freely. Then Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, the second caliph’s
son, was brought before Imam Ali, and he also said, “Until the
majority swear fealty to you, I will not do so.” He was told to
introduce someone as his guarantor, but he said that he had
none. Then Imam Ali said, “Let him go; I am his guarantor” (Ibn
Athīr, vol. 3, 191).

Abū Ḥanīfa Dīnivarī writes that Mālik al-Ashtar, one of Imam

Ali’s most loyal companions, told Imam that the fealty to him
was the majority’s fealty, and hence whoever refuses it should
be imprisoned to become disciplined. Imam Ali replied, “But I
will leave them taking their different views” (143). This is the
very meaning of political freedom in Islam.

It is amazing that history bears witness to such great extent of

Imam Ali’s leniency and tolerance. By juxtaposing this with
what occurred in the Umayyad period, one can notice the
marked difference between caliphate and monarchy. Now let

28
us compare Imam Ali’s practice in his rule with Mu’āwīya I’s to
realize how violent the Umayyad rule was.

The historians, Naṣr ibn Muzāḥim, Abū Ḥanīfa Dīnivarī, and

Sibṭ ibn Jauzī report that during the Battle of Ṣiffīn, Imam Ali
noticed a few of his men cursing Mu’āwīya and his soldiers.
Imam forbade them from that, and they asked Imam whether
they were on the right side, while Mu’āwīya’s army was on the
wrong side. Imam replied in the affirmative. They then asked,
“Why are you forbidding us from cursing them?” Imam Ali
said:

I did not like you being among those who curse.

Instead, pray, “Please God protect both sides from
bloodshed, establish peace between us, and guide
those who are unaware of the truth so that they
recognize it and cease to insist on their misjudgment.”
(Naṣr ibn Muzāḥim, 103; Dīnivarī, 165; compare this
with Nahj al-Balāgha, the sermon no. 206)

On the other hand, during his rule, Mu’āwīya ibn Abī Sufyān
ordered his subjects to curse Ali. He censured even some of the
Prophet’s companions for not cursing Imam Ali. In Muslim’s
Saḥīḥ, one of the six major hadith collections in Sunni Islam, we
read:

‘Ămir, S’ad ibn Abī Waqqāṣ’s son, quoted his father as

saying that he was brought before Mu’āwīya to answer
the charge why he had not cursed Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib,
a.k.a. Abū Turāb, and S’ad replied, “I never curse him
as long as I recall three things the Prophet said about
him.” (vol.4, 1871, the chapter of the Companions’
merits)

Although S’ad had refused to swear fealty to Imam Ali, he then

reminded Mu’āwīya of “the Hadith of Analogy (Manzala),” 9 the

9The translator’s note: The Prophet took a journey to Tabūk, and he appointed Ali to succeed
him in Medina. Ali said to the Prophet: “Do you leave me with the children and the women?”
The Prophet replied: “Are you not content to be to me like Aaron to Moses, except that there

29
Prophet’s words about Ali on the eve of the conquest of
Khaibar, 10 and the Event of Mubāhala, in which Ali had taken
part. 11 Despite this, Mu’āwīya kept giving the order to curse
Imam Ali from the pulpits of the congregational mosques, even
though some of the Prophet’s companions and his wives
strongly objected to this practice. Ahmad ibn Ḥanbal relates in
his Musnad that once Abū Abdullah al-Jadalī came to Umm
Salama, one of the Prophet’s wives, and she asked him if he
knew that the Ali was being cursed by Muslims. He replied,
“God forbid!” She said, “I heard the Prophet say, ‘Whosoever
curses Ali has cursed me’” (vol. 6, 323).

Moreover, following Mu’āwīya’s order, his governors practiced

fierce violence to force Muslims to curse Imam Ali. Ṭabarī
writes in his History that Ziyād ibn Abīh, the governor of Kufa
in Mu’āwīya’s rule, showed rigid adherence to the order. One
day he summoned Saifī ibn Fasīl, one of Imam Ali’s devotees,
and addressed him, “O God’s enemy! What do you say about
Abū Turāb (i.e. Imam Ali)?” He replied that he did not know
Abū Turāb. 12 Ziyād said, “Do you not know Abū Tālib’s son?”
Saifī answered, “Yes, I do.” Ziyād said, “They are one and the
same.” Saifī objected, “But he is Abū al-Ḥasan (Ḥasan’s father)
and Abū al-Ḥusain (Ḥusain’s father).” Then Ziyād threatened

will be no prophet after me?” (Al-Bukhārī, in his Saḥīḥ, vol. 6, 3). The hadith is known as that of
analogy (Manzala).

10The translator’s note: The Battle of Khaibar was fought in the year 628 between Muslims and
the Jews of Khaibar oasis. On the battle’s eve, the Prophet proclaimed, “By God, tomorrow I
shall give the banner to a man who loves Allah and His Apostle, whom Allah and His Apostle
love. Allah will bestow victory upon him.” In the morning, the Prophet called out for Ali ibn
Abī Țalib to carry the banner.

11 The translator’s note: The Event of Mubāhala was a debate between Prophet Muhammad and

the Christians of Najrān in which either of the sides was supposed to call God’s curse down
upon whichever of the two parties was not speaking truthfully. To the Christians’ surprise, the
Prophet took his closest kindred (Ali, Fātima, Ḥasan and Ḥusain) with him to the debate, and
the Christians withdrew.

12 The translator’s note: Abū Turāb (literally meaning "the father of dust") is one of Imam Ali’s
titles. According to some narrations the title was given to him by the Prophet, when he found
Ali sleeping while his clothes were covered with dust. In the Umayyad period, the title was used
as a derogatory title for Imam Ali.

30
him to beat him with his staff if he did not curse Imam Ali, but
he praised Imam instead. Ziyād started beating him violently,
but he continued to admire Imam. Eventually, Ziyād ordered
his men to chain him up and send him to prison (vol. 5, 266).
Ibn Athīr writes about Ziyād ibn Abīh that “he used to
apprehend people on suspicion and punish them in doubt”
(vol. 3, 450). The day that he was appointed by Mu’āwīya as the
governor of Kufa, he delivered a sermon, which is known as
“the defective sermon,” 13 and, in his sermon, he said, “By God,
I will punish a friend in his friend’s place… and the innocent in
the offender’s place” Then one of the Kharijites who was
present there objected, “But the Holy Qur’an apprizes us
otherwise when it says, ‘No bearer of burdens carries another’s
burdens’ [53:38] Ziyād replied, “We will find no way to what
you and your fellows wish except that we spill your blood for
that!” (Ibn Athīr, vol. 3, 450).

Ibn ʿAbd Rabbih writes in his Al-ʿIqd al-Farīd (The Unique

Necklace) that while Ziyād was delivering a speech, a man asked
him, “Who is your father?” 14 Ziyād pointed to the commander
of his police and said, “This man will let you know of that.” And
the commander stood up and beheaded him (vol. 1, 76).

Another violent figure of Mu’āwīya’s period is Samura ibn

Jundab, who used to sit in for Ziyād in Kufa when the latter
would go to Basra and, after Ziyād’s death, was appointed by
Mu’āwīya as Kufa’s governor for six months before he was
dismissed by Mu’āwīya. Ṭabarī quoted him in The History as
saying, “May Heaven’s curse be on Mu’āwīya! By Allah, if I had
obeyed Allah the way that I obeyed Mu’āwīya, He will never
punish me” (vol. 5, 291). Ibn Athīr writes that Muhammad ibn
Sīrīn, a scholar from Basra, said that in order to please
Mu’āwīya, Samura ibn Jundab had killed more than 8000

13The translator’s note: The sermon is called as such since it did not commence with the praise
of God.

14
The translator’s note: Ziyād was of unknown parentage due to his mother’s promiscuity.
Therefore, he was called “ibn Abīh” (son of his father) because of his problematic lineage.

31
people, in Ziyād’s absence from Kufa. On his return, Ziyād
asked him, “Are you not afraid of having killed innocents
among so many people?” He answered, “I would not be afraid
if I had to kill another 8000” (vol. 3, 462; also see Ṭabarī, vol. 5,
237). Abū al-Sawwār al-‘Adawī said, “Samura in one morning
killed 47 members of my tribe all of whom knew Qur’an by
heart” (Ibn Athīr, vol. 3, 463). Ṭabarī writes in his History that
Suleimān ibn Muslim al-‘Ijlī quoted his father as saying that
once he had seen a man paying his annual tax (zakat) to Samura
before he entered the Kufa Mosque; then, the man went to the
mosque to say his prayers; all of a sudden, one of Samura’s
agents came to the mosque and decapitated the man, as he was
saying his prayers (vol. 5, 292).

The pretext of these atrocious murders usually was that

someone was among Imam Ali’s devotees, dissatisfied with
Mu’āwīya’s rule, and/or unwilling to curse Imam Ali. Mu’āwīya
and his men thought of violence as a means of everlasting
sovereignty; this was the supposition that all ambitious,
tyrannical rulers throughout history have incurably held fast
to. But one may wonder if the very supposition still appeals to
Muslim extremists. In the coming pages, we will explore this in
more detail.

Busr ibn Abī Arṭāt was another example among the Umayyad
state’s bloodthirsty, staunch supporters. Mu’āwīya sent him in
at the head of 3000 men from Shām (Shaam, today Syria) to
Medina, where he met with little resistance. Then, from
Medina he went to Mecca and to Yemen, where he slaughtered
two innocent children of ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Abbās, Imam Ali’s
cousin and his agent in Yemen. ‘Ubaidullah had left his two
children with a man from Bani Kanāna. As Busr set out to
butcher the children, the man from Bani Kanāna said to him,
“If you want to kill these two innocent children, you must first
kill me.” Busr killed the man and then slaughtered the children
to give Mu’āwīya, on his trturn to Shām, the news of his
courage! (See: Ṭabarī, vol. 5, 140). Surprisingly, Busr considered
himself a Muslim and apparently had respect for the Prophet
32
since when in Mecca he came across Abū Mūsā Ash’arī, who was
afraid that Busr would kill him, Busr reassured him, “I never
will cause the Prophet’s companion any harm” (Ṭabarī, vol. 5,
139).

The idea of the killing of children, as a legacy from the

Kharijites and the Umayyad period, unfortunately persists in
the hard-line, superficial minds of those extremist Muslims
who attack schools today. Such a violent behavior is far
removed from the Islamic teachings and closely linked to the
temperaments of some primitive tribes in Pre-Islamic Arabia
or elsewhere. How can Islam that instructs pity even on animals
support such barbarities?

33
 “Obligatory” Oath of Fealty to Yazid

As demonstrated by historical documents, Imam Ali never

forced people into taking oaths of fealty for himself. Mu’āwīya,
however, neglected the freedom of choice in swearing fealty to
his son Yazīd. Although there still existed people among the
Prophet’s family and companions who were much more
qualified in terms of piety and statesmanship, Mu’āwīya not
only did not leave the Muslim council (shūrā) with the task of
introducing the new caliph but also imposed on Muslims his
will to give the succession to his son, as Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, the
second caliph’s son, once told Mu’āwīya that he had turned
caliphate into the autocratic rule of Caesar and Khosrow (Ibn
Qutaiba, 196).

Ibn Athīr writes in his History that Mu’āwīya designated guards

to stand up above the heads of the four men who were opposed
to Yazīd’s rule, that is, Ḥusain ibn Ali (the Prophet’s grandson),
Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, Abdullah ibn Zubair, and Abd al-Raḥmān
ibn Abūbakr, and he specified that the guards had to behead
any of them who would utter a word during his speech.
Mu’āwīya then ascended the pulpit and pointed to those four
men, addressing people: “These four are most respected people
who have given consent to Yazīd’s rule and have sworn fealty
to him. O people! Swear fealty to Yazīd in the name of Allah!”
(vol. 3, 511). The consequences of this coercion most terribly
came to the fore during Yazīd’s three-and-half-year rule: In the
first year, Ḥusain ibn Ali and his companions were martyred
and his family was held in captivity by Yazīd’s order; in the
second year, during the Event of Ḥarrah, Yazīd ordered the
massacre of people of Medina, the place of the Prophet’s
sanctuary, and his army looted the city for three consecutive
days and committed heinous crimes such as rape and killing
infants; and, in the third year, Yazīd’s army employed catapults
to bombard with stones Mecca, where Abdullah ibn Zubair had
sought asylum to, and, consequently, burned the Kaaba down.

34
These three crimes are among the most abhorrent crimes in
the history of Islam, figuring prominently in the lists of
Umayyad crimes, even though a group of narrow-minded
Muslims do not still cease to defend the Umayyads despite
these historical facts. For example, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a
book entitled Yazīd ibn Mu’āwīya, The Slandered Caliph (by
Hazzā’ ibn ‘Id al-Shimrī) has been published to give an
embellished account of what happened in Yazīd’s rule. While,
according to Ibn Taimīyya, Ahmad ibn Ḥanbal, the imam of
Ḥanbalites, gives the fatwa as to the refusal of any hadith (i.e. a
report of the sayings or actions of the Prophet) from Yazīd, it is
not clear why a group who consider themselves as Ḥanbalites
in Islamic law still defend Yazīd so avidly. Ibn Taimīyya writes,
“Ahmad ibn Ḥanbal was asked whether it was allowed to write
any hadith from Yazīd. He answered, ‘No! No, due to the
prominence of hadith! Was Yazīd not the one who did what he
did in Ḥarrah?’ ”(133).

What exactly did Yazīd’s army during the Event of Ḥarrah in

Medina? Ahmad ibn Abī Ya’qūb, a. k. a. Ya’qūbī, whose History
predates Ṭabarī’s, affirms that after Medina’s people had
refused to swear fealty to Yazīd, he sent in Muslim ibn ‘Uqba at
the head of 3000 soldiers to Medina. The troops fought the
people of Medina, defeated them and entered the city. Ya’qūbī
writes:

Few people remained alive in Medina; Muslim ibn

‘Uqba let the sanctuary of the Prophet (i.e. Medina) be
desecrated by his soldiers (that is, he allowed them to
rape women) so that medians of Medina would give
birth to children whose fathers could not be identified.
Then he forced the remaining people to swear fealty
to Yazīd and to be his servants. (vol. 2, 250)

By juxtaposing this with Imam Ali’s instructions to his troops at

the beginning of every battle, one can find a yawning gap
between the Umayyad attitude and the Islamic one. According

35
to Ibn Kathīr in his History, Imam Ali used to instruct his
soldiers as follows:

Do not fight them unless they start fighting since, by

God’s grace, you have the advantage of having a
cogent argument, and your refusal to start fighting
them is another argument to your advantage. Then,
when you defeat them, do not kill the fugitive or the
injured, and do not expose their private parts (in order
to humiliate them), and do not mutilate any corpses,
and, when you reach their dwellings, do not trespass
on their inner sanctum, do not enter their homes, and
do not take anything from them. Do not inflame their
women no matter how harshly they insult your honor
or curse your commanders and your good men since
women are fragile in their constitution and soul. (vol.
3, 293)

Imam Ali, who had been reared and taught by the Prophet,
disapproved of the idea of violence, but the Umayyads
endorsed it. Thus, no one is entitled to attribute violence to
Islam, and, as a result, if they do so, they have viewed Islam with
the distorted outlook of Mu’āwīya and Yazīd and their agents.

Shockingly, history bears witness to the fact that sometimes

criminals consider their inhumane actions as good deeds and
even boast of them, relying upon false ideas they have in mind.
In fact, the Qur’anic verse applies to them: “…the evil of his
conduct is made embellished so that he sees it as a good deed”
(35:8). For example, on his deathbed shortly after the tragic
event of Ḥarrah, Muslim ibn ‘Uqba said, “O God if you should
punish me for what I did in Ḥarrah with complete obedience
to your caliph Yazīd, then I am wretched!” (Ya’qūbī, vol. 2, 251).
He presumed that his obedience to Yazīd would spare him the
retribution for his crimes. This false idea arose from a common
misconception that a group of Muslims have still had to the
effect that whoever manages to gain political dominance
through any means must be obeyed since “might is right.”

36
Notwithstanding, Qur’an clearly specifies: “Do not obey the
command of those who contravene (the divine law), who
spread wrong (fasād) in the land and make no correction”
(26:151-152).

The Leniency of Mu’āwīya II and Marwān’s

Violence
Yazīd’s rule lasted only three and half years, and his son,
Mu’āwīya ibn Yazīd, a. k. a. Mu’āwīya II, succeeded him as the
third Umayyad caliph. Surprisingly, he openly denounced his
father Yazīd and condemned his crimes. Ya’qūbī writes in his
History that Mu’āwīya II delivered a speech after his ascension:
In his speech, Mu’āwīya ibn Yazīd said,

“My grandfather, Mu’āwīya ibn Abū Sufyān, vied for

authority with someone who was more deserving of it
in terms of being close to the Prophet and being the
first convert to Islam; he was the Prophet’s cousin and
the father of the Prophet’s grandchildren… Before his
death, my grandfather appointed as his successor my
father who was not worthy of acclaim. My father was
indulged in all his caprices… But his days were
numbered, and he went to his grave as he was a captive
to his sins.” Then he burst into tears and said, “My
father killed the Prophet’s kin, desecrated Medina and
burned the Kaaba down. I am not to take up the task of
ruling over you. I will leave it up to you to decide. By
God, if worldly kingdom is a prize, we have had a good
portion of it, and if it is a loss, the House of Abū Sufyān
has had enough of it!” (vol. 2, 254)

Marwān ibn Ḥakam succeeded Mu’āwīya II, who abdicated in

684. 15 As the advisor of late ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān, the third caliph,
Marwān was a notoriously short-tempered person who is

15The translator’s note: Marwān's rule was a power shift from the descendants of Abū Sufyān
to those of Ḥakam (the “Marwānids”).

37
believed to have provided one of the motivations behind
‘Uthmān’s murder whereby the Islamic world was plunged into
civil strife. Every time, through Ali ibn Abī Tālib’s mediation,
Egyptian malcontents negotiated a political settlement with
‘Uthman, Marwān’s influence on the caliph disrupted the
process of reconciliation: Marwān dissuaded ‘Uthmān from
showing empathy with the people, and then he himself spoke
to them harshly on the caliph’s behalf so that they became
much more displeased with the caliph. Here is an example of
what Marwān said to the malcontents as reported in Ṭabarī’s
and Ibn Athīr’s Histories:

“What is your business?! It seems as if you have

gathered here for plunder. Down with you! ... You have
come to take away our dominion. Go away from us!”
(Ṭabarī, vol. 4, 362; Ibn Athīr, vol. 3, 165).

By juxtaposing this reaction with that of the Prophet to

discontented people, one can understand the meaning of the
Qur’anic verse: “It was by the mercy of Allah that you (i.e.
Prophet Muhammad) dealt so leniently with them” (3: 159).

According to the historians Ibn Hishām and Wāqidī, after the

Prophet had managed to repel Hawāzin’s attack, 16 he pardoned
the Hawāzin captives and released all of them. Then, the
Prophet allotted the spoils of the battle, but he first gave the
noblemen of Quraish and the Bedouin Arab tribes their shares
in order to make them more inclined to Islam. When the
Prophet gave remarkable shares to them, some people from

16 The translator’s note: Shortly after Mecca’s conquest, the Muslims learned that Hawāzin, the

tribe living a few miles to the southeast of Mecca, had mobilized its forces and was marching
against the Muslims in Mecca. Together with his followers, who had helped him in the conquest
of Mecca, and new converts to Islam from Mecca, the Prophet departed from Mecca to fight
against Hawāzin in Hunain.

38
Anṣār 17 objected to him. The Prophet gathered all of them and,
after glorifying God, said to them:

“O community of Anṣār, what is this talk I hear about

you? What is the grudge you have harbored in your
hearts against me? Did I not come to you when you
were going astray and God guided you? Were you not
needy and then made rich by God? Were you not
enemies and did not God reconcile your hearts?” They
answered, “Yes indeed, God and His Apostle are
gracious and kind.” He said, “Why do you not answer
me, o Anṣār?!” They said, “What should we have
answered you, o Apostle of God? Kindness and
graciousness belong to God and His Apostle.” He said,
“Now then, if you had wished, you could have said-
and you would have spoken the truth and have been
accepted as truthful- ‘You came to us when your
message was rejected [by Quraish] and we believed in
you; you were forsaken and we assisted you; you were
expelled and we sheltered you; you were needy and we
comforted you; O Anṣār, those people should take
away sheep and camels while you go back to your
home with the Apostle of God. By Him, in whose hand
the soul of Muhammad is, were it not for the
Migration (hijra), I would be one of the Anṣār myself.
If all people went one way and the Anṣār another one,
I would take the way of the Anṣār. O God, have mercy
on the Anṣār, their sons and their sons’ sons.”

The narrator concludes,

“The people wept until their tears ran down their

beards and said that they were pleased with the

17 The translator’s note: Anṣār is an Islamic term for Medina’s local inhabitants who took

Prophet Muhammad and his followers (the Muhājirūn) into their homes after they had escaped
from Mecca.

39
 Apostle of God as their share” (Ibn Hishām, vol. 4, 123;
Wāqidī, vol. 2, 957).

Let’s compare this kind-hearted attitude with Marwān’s

harshness and draw the dividing line between Islam and the
Umayyad and Marwānid modes of politics.

Marwān always bore hostility towards the Prophet’s household.

In the battle of Ṣiffīn, he was on Mu’āwīya’s side, and, in
Mu’āwīya’s rule, he was appointed as the governor of Medina.
Al-Suyūtī writes in his History of the Caliphs that Marwān used to
curse Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib in all his Friday sermons from the pulpit
of the Medina mosque, while Ḥasan ibn Ali (i.e. Imam Ali’s son)
was present there (190), and he kept doing this until he was
removed from his position. After Mu’āwīya’s death Walīd ibn
‘Utba the governor of Medina summoned Ḥusain ibn Ali to take
an oath of fealty to Yazīd. Ḥusain went there, but refused to
swear an oath of fealty to Yazīd. Marwān, who was present at
the meeting, said to Walīd, “Do not let Ḥusain leave you till he
swears the oath, or else cut off his head!” Ḥusain snapped
angrily at him, “O son of Zarqā’! 18 Will you dare to kill me or
will he do? Verily you have lied and have sinned.” Saying this,
Ḥusain ibn Ali went outside (Ṭabarī, vol. 5, 340; Ibn Athīr, vol.
4, 15)

‘Abd al-Malik became caliph after the death of his father

Marwān in 685. He then appointed one of his most cruel
generals and administrators, al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf, as his right
hand. About this ferocious, bloodthirsty man, the Umayyad
caliph, ‘Umar ibn Abdul-‘Azīz (‘Umar II) said later, “If every
nation was to call in its most vicious man and we (i.e. the
Umayyads) called in al-Ḥajjāj, we would beat off the challenge!”
According to Ibn Athīr, al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf killed as many as
120,000 people for the sake of the Umayyad cause (vol. 4, 586).

18The translator’s note: By calling him ‘the son of Zarqā’, Ḥusain ibn Ali hinted at Marwān’s
ignoble descent.

40
In fact, ‘Abd al-Malik himself had the upper hand (over al-
Ḥajjāj) when it came to ferocity and violence. In the beginning
of his rule, he had agreed that he would be succeeded by Yazīd
ibn Mu’āwīya’s two sons, Khālid and Abdullah, one after the
other, but later he changed his mind and wanted his son al-
Walīd to succeed him. When Khālid and Abdullah came to his
deathbed, he asked them if they liked him nullifying the
allegiance to al-Walīd for their sake. After both of them
answered in the negative, ‘Abd al-Malik said, “Had you said
otherwise, I would have given the order to kill you right away.”
And he died on the very day (Dīnivarī, 225).

Could these brutal, violent rulers be the true successors to the

Prophet who is called “mercy unto all creatures” in Qur’an?
Were they the true successors to the one who said, “Allah is not
merciful to those who do not show mercy to people” (Tirmidhī,
vol. 3, 216)? He is the one who said,

“Sometimes I rise to say (congregational) prayers and

I intend to prolong it, but then I hear a child crying,
and I shorten my prayers thinking of the distress of the
child’s mother (who says her prayers behind me)”
(Bukhārī, hadith no. 707).

Are we as Muslims allowed to overlook the Islamic moral codes

both in Qur’an and in the Prophet’s modes of behavior to follow
such violent people as the Kharijites and al-Ḥajjāj, or to view
Islam from the distorted perspectives of such atrocious rulers
as Yazīd, Marwān and ‘Abd al-Malik? In that case, have we not
distanced ourselves from the true Islam, being disloyal to it?

Islam and Persians

Contrary to the Islamic teachings which say race is not the
criterion for man’s superiority, the Umayyad rulers used to
give priority to Arabs over non-Arabs, as though they had
forgotten the Qur’anic verse, “Surely, the most honorable of
you in the sight of Allah is the one who is the most righteous”
(49: 13). The Umayyads called Muslim Persians (Iranians) as al-

41
Mawālī (second-class citizens) and were openly contemptuous
of them, while the Arabs held most of the upper echelons of
government, notwithstanding the fact that the Prophet in his
last pilgrimage to Mecca (Farewell Pilgrimage) had said, “There
is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab or for a non-Arab
over an Arab except by righteousness” (Ya’qūbī, vol. 2, 110).

Moreover, according to Muslim in his Saḥīḥ, the Prophet put

his hand on Salmān al-Fārisī (i.e. the Persian) and said, “If faith
were at (the place of) al-Thuraiyyā (Pleiades, that is, an
inaccessible place), some men from these people (i.e. Persians)
would attain it” (vol. 4, 1973; and also see Ṭabarī’s commentary
on the Friday Sura, verse 3, in his Tafsīr). The Prophet also said,
“Salmān is one of us, Ahl al-Bait (the Prophet’s family)” (al-
Manāwī, see under the alphabetic letter ‘sīn’), when in the Battle
of the Confederates (al-Aḥzāb), every group of the Muhājirūn
and the Anṣār repeated, “Salmān is one of us; Salmān is one of
us” (Ibn Ḥamza al-Dimashqī, vol. 2, 368).

As to Zoroastrians, the Prophet instructed Muslims to treat

them like people of the book (i.e. adherents of the Abrahamic
religions), not as pagans or idolaters. We read in one of the
earliest collections of hadith, al-Muwaṭṭa’ by Mālik ibn Anas
that Ja’far ibn Muhammad al-Ṣādiq narrated from his father
that ‘Umar ibn Khaṭṭāb, the second caliph, once had said, “I do
not know how to treat Zoroastrians,” and one of the Prophet’s
companions, Abd al-Raḥmān ibn ‘Auf, had stood up and said,
“I heard the Prophet say, ‘Treat them as you treat people of the
book’ ” (vol. 1, 207).

Not for nothing did Persians embrace Islam crowd after crowd.
Had they seen nothing but violence and harshness in Islam,
they would never have relinquished the religion of their fathers
to embrace it. We should keep in mind that early Muslims
refused to destroy fire-temples, the centers of Zoroastrian
rituals, in Persia (Iran): “Three centuries after the Arab conquest,
fire-temples still existed in almost every Persian province” (Browne,

42
206). 19 The 10-century Muslim geographer, Istakhrī reported in
his al-Masālik wa al-Mamālik, “Zoroastrian scriptures, fire-temples
and rituals still exist in Fārs Province (in the southern Iran) and
there are not so many Zoroastrians in other provinces as in Fars where
Zoroastrianism prevails” (121).

19 The translator’s note: There is little disagreement among modern scholars about the idea that

Persians’ conversion to Islam took place slowly over a period of four centuries or more. In fact,
a more challenging criticism argued that the conversion took place at even slower pace (Bulliet,
31).

43
 The Culture of Violence

Thus far, we have pointed out examples of violent conduct that

were mainly committed by the Kharijites and the Umayyads in
the Islamic world. Although the subsequent Islamic dynasties
sometimes followed Ummayad examples, the description of
those atrocities is beyond the scope of this book. However, of
greater importance is the culture of violence that has made its
way to the judicial and theological systems of some Islamic
schools, causing irreparable damage to the Islamic Ummah. In
fact, this constitutes the underlying cause for violent behaviors
among Muslim extremists. In this culture of violence, there are
harsh rulings (fatwas) issued against those people who are
outside the Islamic faith as well as those who are within Islam.
For instance, the Muslim scholar Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (1445-
1505) in his scathing book, Ṣaun al-Manṭiq wa-l-Kalām 'an Fann
al-Manṭiq wa-l-Kalām (the Protection of Reasoning and Speech
from Logic and Theology), criticizes Muslim theologians for
their efforts to persuade non-Muslims into embracing Islam by
means of powerful rational arguments, while, based on his
supposition, this is not the Islamic dealings with non-Muslims:

The Islamic ruling on non-Muslims is simple: they are

asked to embrace Islam; if they refuse and ask for a
respite, they are not given any. They must either
embrace Islam, pay jizya (per capita tax) or be killed.
(172)

By making these claims, al-Suyūṭī attributes coercion and

violence to Islam, while on the contrary the Qur’an explicitly
rejects such claims:

If one of the pagans asks you for protection, give it to

him so that he can hear the Word of Allah; then take
him to a place where he feels safe. That is because they
are people who do not know. (Qur’an, 9:6)

44
This Qur’anic verse, from Tauba (Repentance) Sura belonging
to the last years of the Medinite Period, talks about a non-
Muslim who is confronted by Muslims in a battle and asks them
for a reprieve to come to them and hear the Word of God. The
Qur’anic verse instructs Muslims to grant him a reprieve and
protect him so that he can listen to the Qur’an; then they must
escort him back to safety instead of killing him or forcing him
to pay jizya! The Qur’anic verse especially made no mention of
his conversion to Islam since if he had embraced Islam,
Muslims would not have needed to escort him back to his safe
place anymore, and he would have lived among Muslims in
Medina. Much to our surprise, al-Suyūṭī violates his previous
ruling on non-Muslims, when he comments on this Qur’anic
verse in his exegesis of the Qur’an, saying “‘Take him to a place
where he feels safe’ means take him to his people, if he does not
embrace Islam, so that he can reflect on his state of affairs”
(Tafsīr al- Jalālain, vol. 1, 159). 20

The question arises how far this view is at odds with what al-
Suyūṭī has previously stated in his Ṣaun al-Manṭiq wa-l-Kalām.
His previous view seems to be in conformity to the Kharijites’
approach, as it is reported that “they asked whoever they met
about the arbitration; if he or she expressed his/her aversion to
the arbiters, they let him/her go, but if he/she refused to do so,
they killed him/her immediately” (Dīnivarī, 206).

Basically, the expectation that everyone who is called on to

embrace Islam must reject his/her own faith and accept Islam
instantly is beyond most people’s capabilities, and the Qur’an
repeatedly states that God imposes on no one beyond his/her
capabilities: “On no one does Allah place a burden greater than
he can bear” (2: 286), as evidenced by a number of the Prophet’s
companions who were warmly welcomed to Islam by the

20Interestingly, the Qur’anic verse concludes that the reason behind this Islamic manner
towards those non-Muslims is “they are people who do not know.” This implies that those
people should be provided with knowledge, freedom and security since they are uninformed
about Islam.

45
Prophet, after they had been deliberating on this at an
unhurried pace. More interestingly, the Chapter 9 of the Qur’an
gives a four-month respite to the idolaters who breached the
terms of their agreement with Muslims and, during the
Ḥudaibiyya Treaty, 21 had repeatedly met Muslims and listened
to the message of Islam: “Go freely in the land for four months”
(Qur’an, 9:2). 22

Al-Suyūṭī lived mostly in the 15th century, but his ruling on

non-Muslims is not unprecedented. He himself ascribed the
ruling to Abul al-‘Abbās ibn Suraij,4 a 9th-century scholar from
Shāfi’ī school of law:

Abul al-‘Abbās ibn Suraij is reported to have said, “if a

man comes to us asking us to let him consider
carefully the various religions in order to accept what
he finds to be true and to reject what he finds to be
false, we will not let him do so, or rather will coerce
him into embracing Islam, and if he refuses, we are
obliged to kill him.” (Al-Suyūṭī, 172-3)

The report may be an authentic one; that is to say Ibn Suraij

may have issued such a ruling. However, the idea about those
who attempt to follow the best way is expressed the other way
round in the Qur’an:

The good news to my servants who listen to the word

and follow the best of it: Those are the ones whom
Allah has guided, and those the ones endowed with
understanding. (39: 17-18).

21The translator’s note: The Treaty of Ḥudaibiyya was a pivotal treaty between the Prophet,
representing the Muslims in Medina, and the Quraish of Mecca in March 628. It helped to
decrease tension between the two sides for a couple of years. The treaty was violated with an
attack by a Quraish-allied tribe on a Muslim tribe.

22 The translator’s note: Some Muslim exegetes believe that these four months are “the
Forbidden (four) Months,” per year (see Qur’an 9: 5), when fighting is strictly prohibited by
Islamic law– e.g. See Zamakhsharī, Al-Kashshāf, vol. 2, 243.

46
To accomplish what this Qur’anic verse requires one should be
given plenty of space to search and find out what is the best.

One of the main problems with such views as Ibn Suraij’s is that
they require the unquestioning acceptance of the foundations
of the Islamic faith, 23 while the Qur’an denounces the
unquestioning acceptance of the forefathers and the great
leaders’ religion as the wrong tradition which polytheists and
idolaters used to follow:

When it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has

revealed,” they say “No! We shall follow the ways of
our fathers.” (2: 170) No, they say: “We found our
fathers following a certain religion and we follow their
footsteps.” (43: 22)

Another problem is that the scholars who have such views tend
to ignore a number of clear, explicit Qur’anic verses, saying
instead “Our pious predecessors held such views, and we are their
followers.” In a manner of speaking, they are willing to receive
their beliefs from those esteemed characters, not from the holy
Qur’an. Moreover, one may become startled at finding that not
every pious predecessor held such views. For example, in the
early Islamic period, the eminent Islamic figure Ali ibn Abī
Ṭālib had allowed some hesitant people to consider carefully
whether or not he was right in the Ṣiffīn Battle against
Mu’āwīya, before they decided to side with or against him. Naṣr
ibn Muzāḥim wrote in his book, The Event of Ṣiffīn:

Some close friends of Abdullah ibn Mas’ūd (the

Prophet’s companion) came to Ali and said, “We will
accompany you but not enter your army; rather, we
will camp separately to monitor carefully the situation
between your troops and the Syrians. If we see one
side is engaged in an unlawful or unfair act, we will

23The translator’s note: The foundations of the Islamic faith (Uṣūl al-Dīn) are a set of essential
beliefs in Islam that every Muslim needs to believe in; otherwise, he is not considered a Muslim

47
 fight against that side.” Ali welcomed them and said,
“This is the profound understanding of the religion
and the proper knowledge of the tradition. Whoever is
not pleased with it will be a faithless oppressor.” (115)

When Imam Ali gave the people permission to deliberate on

whether to participate in jihad which is one of the Islamic
obligations (Furū’ al-Dīn), why are people not given permission
to ponder on the foundations of the Islamic faith?

The Issue of Jizya

Regarding jizya to which Al-Suyūţī referred, it should be noted
that jizya is a per capita yearly tax paid by certain non-Muslim
subjects who permanently reside in Muslim lands to the Islamic
state in return for their support and protection. This tax is
roughly similar to zakāt, a tax paid by Muslims to the Islamic
state, though this is an Islamic obligation; hence, non-Muslim
subjects are not asked to pay zakāt. Muslim scholars have
written numerous books on jizya, like Aḥkām Ahl al-Dhimma
(rulings on non-Muslim subjects) by Ibn Qayyim al-Jauziyya,
in which the rules and conditions for jizya are discussed in
detail.

In the old book Al-Kharāj by Qāzi Abū Yūsuf (735 or 739-798), 24

it is written that jizya must be paid only by men, not by women
or children. Moreover, the poor, the handicapped, the
unemployed, monks and hermits, elders, and the insane are
exempted from jizya (Qāzi Abū Yūsuf, 131). Those who pay jizya
are not required to enlist and go to wars. 25 The renowned
orientalist Thomas W. Arnold reports all this in his book The
Preaching of Islam and adds:

24 The translator’s note: He served as the chief judge (qadī al-qudāt) during the reign of Harūn

al-Rashīd.

25The translator’s note: However, non-Muslim subjects who chose to join military service were
exempted from jizya.

48
 This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some
would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to
accept the Muslim faith, but was paid by them in
common with the other dhimmīs or non-Muslim
subjects whose religion precluded them from serving
in the army, in return for the protection secured for
them by the arms of the Musulmans. (55)

Thus, Muslim states collected jizya from their non-Muslim

subjects on condition that they could provide those subjects with
security and protection, as this condition was clearly
recognized by the early Muslims. For example, in the reign of
the Caliph ‘Umar, the Emperor Heraclius raised an enormous
army to drive back the Muslim forces. In consequence,
Muslims had to concentrate all their energies on the impending
encounter. Then,

The Arab general, Abū ‘Ubaydah accordingly wrote to

the governors of the conquered cities of Syria,
ordering them to pay back all jizya that had been
collected from the cities, and wrote to the people,
saying, “We give you back the money that we took
from you, as we have received news that a strong force
is advancing against us. The agreement between us was
that we should protect you, and as this is not now in
our power, we return all that we took. But if we are
victorious, we shall cosider ourselves bound to you by
the old terms of our agreement.” (Arnold, 55-56)

Violent dealings with Other Muslim sects

Apart from Al-Suyūṭī’s ruling on non-Muslims, by looking
through the books written about the Islamic sects, we
sometimes come across some harsh, extreme views which are
truly far removed from Islamic tolerance and objective
impartiality. For instance, ‘Abd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī, an
Ash’arī scholar of the 11th century, in his Al-Farq bain al-Firaq
(The Differences between the Sects), which is widely known
equally among Muslim scholars and Western orientalists, has
49
dealt with other Islamic sects in a prejudiced harsh manner that
is difficult to believe. His views, for example, about various
Islamic sects, such as the Mu’tazila, the Zaidīyya and the
Imāmīyya, are that the Islamic funeral prayers cannot be said
for their dead, that the prayers cannot be said behind them (i.e.
in congregational prayers), that their slaughtered animals
cannot be eaten, that they cannot marry a Sunni woman and
no Sunni man can marry any woman of them (‘Abd al-Qāhir
al-Baghdādī, 33). However, according to the Qur’an, most of the
limitations are placed only on idolaters and unbelievers: no
prayer is allowed for their dead (Qur’an, 9:84); their slaughtered
animals cannot be eaten (Qur’an, 6: 121); their men or women
cannot be married to Muslims (Qur’an, 2:221). However, ‘Abd
al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī has extended the application of the
rulings, which are limited to idolaters and unbelievers, to
Muslims!

Ironically, the Mu’tazila are usually considered to be Sunnis,

and they are in agreement with Sunnis even in the issue of
“imamate,” and their disagreement with Ash’arī Sunnis is
limited to a few theological issues such as the divine attributes.
How could they then be separated from Sunnis because of
theses issues, which are not addressed in Qur’an or the Prophet’s
traditions?

That is why Abū Hāmid Ghazzālī, who had taught Ash’arī

theology at Nizāmīyya School in Baghdad for years, criticized
in his book, Faiṣal al-Tafriqa bain al-Islām wa al-Zandaqa (The
Point of Separation between Islam and Apostasy), those Ash’arī
Sunnis who went too far against the Mu’tazila:

Why does the Ash’arī speak so harshly against the

Mu’tazila for their negation of attributes that are
extrinsic to the divine essence, while they do believe
in Allah the Omniscient, the Omnipotent, and they
only disagree with the Ash’arī over the issue that Allah
is the Omniscient and the Omnipotent by His essence
not by attributes extrinsic to His essence? (132)

50
Similarly, how could Shiites be separated from Muslims simply
because they consider Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib to be superior to the
other companions of the Prophet and the most deserving of
succession to the Prophet? Did Sunni historians and
biographers themselves not quote Abū Bakr Siddīq (the
Truthful) as saying at the beginning of his caliphate, “O’ people,
I am appointed as your leader, though I am not the best of you”?
(e.g. see Ibn Hishām, vol. 4, 256; Ṭabarī, vol. 3, 223). Indeed, the
Ghulāt or the Extremists 26 are still the exception, not the rule.
One should not view all the Shia the same as the Ghulāt and
should not issue a harsh ruling on all. It should be noted that
the legacy of hatred and prejudice from the past tends to lead
the present-day mindset astray and does no let Muslims come
together for solidarity, as we see in the contemporary Muslim
world.

In the books on Islamic sets, another form of cultural violence

has occasionally come to the fore, that is to say making excuses
for criminals on the pretext that they practiced ijtihād. 27 For
example, Ibn Ḥazm, the famous Sunni theologian and jurist of
the 11th century, has occasionally used this strategy in his book,
Al-Fiṣal fī al-Milal wa al-Ahwā’ wa al-Niḥal (The Separator of
Religions, Heresies, and Sects). He wrote about Abul ‘Ᾱdīya,
who killed ‘Ammār ibn Yāsir, the great companion of the
Prophet, as follows

‘Ammār- may God be pleased with him- was killed by

Abul ‘Ᾱdīya ibn Yasār ibn Sabu’ al-Dailamī who was
present at the Pledge of al-Riḍwān… Abul ‘Ᾱdīya- may
God be pleased with him- was a mujtahid versed in the
act of interpretation; he was mistaken about ‘Ammār

26The translator’s note: Ghulāt or the Extremists are some minority Shiite groups who went to
extremes either by ascribing divine characteristics to figures of Islamic history or by holding
beliefs that deviate from mainstream Shiite theology.

27 The translator’s note: Ijtihād is the process of deriving the law of the sharī'ah about any given
(legal) issue by independent systematic reasoning even when the Qur’an and Sunnah are not
explicit about the issue. An Islamic scholar who is qualified to practice ijtihād is called a mujtahid.

51
 and did wrong to him, but he deserves only one
reward from God [on the grounds that a mujtahid
deserves a reward from God, even though he is
wrong]. (vol. 4, 161)

However, according to a well-known hadith, 28 the Prophet had

said to ‘Ammār ibn Yāsir, “a group of wrongdoers (offenders)
will kill you.” Sunni scholars considered this hadith as clear
evidence of Muhammad’s prophecy since ‘Ammār was killed
by Mu’āwīya’s soldiers in the Battle of Ṣiffīn, as Ibn Ḥajar al-
Haithamī said in his Al-Ṣawā’iq al-Muḥriqa, “This is a prophecy
from the one who was truthful and trustworthy (PBUH)” (355).

It is puzzling that someone like Ibn Ḥazm equates the killing of

‘Ammār with practicing ijtihād and declares his murderer to be
deserving of divine reward. Isn’t this a clear example of “ijtihād
against the literal meaning of the text”? A mujtahid is someone
who applies himself to inferring the instructions mainly from
the Qur’an and the traditions of the Prophet rather than
standing against the Prophet’s explicit, unmistakable word of
warning. The Prophet’s word about ‘Ammār had spread as far
as Syria, so when the Syrians in Mu’āwīya’s army heard the
news of ‘Ammār’s murder, they became hesitant and anxious.
According to Ṭabarī in his History, when Mu’āwīya saw that
considerable anxiety among his men, he had to have recourse
to a fallacious argument, saying, “Did we kill ‘Ammār?! Nay!
‘Ammār was killed by the one who had brought him to the war”
(vol. 5, 41). 29 Ibn Ḥazm counted Abul ‘Ᾱdīya as one of those who
made the Pledge of al-Riḍwān 30 in order to exonerate him [on
the grounds that the Qur’an expressed divine satisfaction with

28The translator’s note: For example, see Al-Ṣaḥīḥ by Muslim, hadith no. 7506 and Al-Ṣaḥīḥ by
Bukhārī, vol. 1, 121, hadith no. 447.

29According to Mu’āwīya’s fallacious argument, the Prophet would have killed all his
companions who were martyred in the wars!

30 The translator’s note: The Pledge of al-Riḍwān was a renewed pledge of some companions

of the Prophet which occurred near Mecca prior to the Hudaibīyya Treaty. The Qur’an (48:10,
18) refers to this event.

52
those who made the Pledge], but he looks as if he did not notice
what has come at the end of the Qur’anic verse: “Anyone who
breaks his pledge breaks it to the harm of his own soul” (48:10).
Therefore, the Qur’anic verse never guaranteed all those who
made the Pledge infallibility or permanent forgiveness.

Things went from bad to worse when Ibn Ḥazm attempted to

exonerate the murderer of Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib by calling Ibn
Muljam a mujtahid who deserved reward from God. In his book,
Al-Muḥallā on Islamic law, Ibn Ḥazm wrote:

There is no disagreement between any members of

the Islamic Nation (Ummah) that ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn
Muljam did kill Ali ibn Abī Tālib- may God be pleased
with him- for he thought he was doing the right thing
based on his interpretation and application of ijtihād.
(vol. 7, 484)

First of all, it should be noted that independent reasoning

(ijtihād) is unsound and false whenever it contradicts an explicit,
unmistakable piece of evidence from the Qur’an or the Sunnah.
Both Shiite and Sunni authorities (even Ibn Ḥazm himself 31)
are unanimous about the fact that the Prophet said to Ali, “No
one loves you but the believer, and no one dislikes you but the
hypocrite.” 32 Moreover, the Prophet prayed for Ali in the event
of Ghadīr Khumm, “O’ Allah, be a supporter of whoever
supports him (Ali) and an enemy of whoever opposes him.” 33
Therefore, with such explicit pieces of evidence, the hostility
towards Ali to the point of his murder is a clear example of
unsound, false ijtihād.

31 Ibn Ḥazim. Al-Fiṣal fī al-Milal wa al-Ahwā’ wa al-Niḥal, vol. 4, 148.

32 The translator’s note: For example see: Al-Ṣaḥīḥ by Muslim, vol. 1, 60, no. 152; Al-Sunan by

Ibn Māja, no. 114; Al-Sunan by Al-Tirmidhī, no. 3736; Al-Sunan by Al-Nasā’ī, vol. 8, 115; and Al-
Musnad by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, vol. 1, 84.

33The translator’s note: For example see: Al-Sunan Al-Kubrā by Al-Nasā’ī, nos. 8092 and 8410;
and Al-Musnad by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, vol. 4, 368 & 372.

53
Secondly, Ahmad ibn Ḥanbal, the imam of Ḥanbalites, in his
Musnad reports that the Prophet said to Ali and ‘Ammār ibn
Yāsir, “Shall I inform you of two men who are the most
wretched among people?” They replied, “Yes, O’ Apostle of
God.” The Prophet said, “The first was the one of Thamūd who
hamstrung the she-camel, 34 and the second is the man who will
strike you in the head with a sword and let your blood moisten
your beard” (Vol. 4, 263). With this in mind, how could one
claim Ibn Muljam as a mujtahid who deserves a reward for his
evil crime?!

Thirdly, in the hadith from the Prophet, 35 ijtihād means

reasoning capacity that a judge may have to apply to
complicated legal proceedings in a court of Islamic law in the
event he has done his best to discover the truth, but he has
mistakenly failed to do so; therefore, since he has done his
utmost to carry out his duty, he will deserve a reward from God.
However, this case and the case of the killings of ‘Ammār and
Ali are worlds apart since the Islamic law explicitly considers
their murderers to be guilty of serious offences.

Finally, not everyone is qualified to be in the position of a

mujtahid. How could Ibn Muljam and Abul ‘Ᾱdīya be allowed to
spill blood on the pretext that they were interpreting mujtahids,
according to Ibn Ḥazm, while they were not jurists, scholars, or
judges? By this fabricated excuse for such sinister crimes,
everybody would allow himself unlimited license in the
exercise of his power at whim to the extent that no government
could tolerate such utter chaos, let alone the Muslim state.

34 The translator’s note: This refers to the she-camel which the Prophet Ṣālih brought to
Thamūd (people of ancient Arabia) as a sign when they desired a miracle to confirm the truth
of the message Ṣālih was preaching. In return, the people were required to let her graze in the
land. That was a trial to see if the greedy would let the camel graze peacefully or they would
slay her. However, they hamstrung the she-camel and slew her (See Qur’an, 7:73-79).

35The hadith is as follows: “If a judge practices ijtihād to make a judgment and he is right, he
will deserve two rewards; however, if he practices ijtihād to make a judgment and he was wrong,
he will deserve only one reward” (Al-Ṣaḥīḥ by Bukhārī, vol. 9, 123). The Arabic word “al-ḥākim”
in the hadith means a judge specifically.

54
55
The Islamic Code of Law and Violence

The Islamic law is generally associated with leniency and ease

as the Qur’an explicitly says, “He (Allah) has imposed no
hardships on you in the religion” (22:78), and also says, “Allah
intends you to be at ease, and He does not intend you to be put
in difficulty” (2:185), or “Allah does intend to lighten your
burdens” (4: 28).

The Prophet also said, “I was designated to preach a lenient

monotheistic religion,” 36 or said, “This religion is built on a
firm base, so move through it gently not to spoil the worship of
Allah to His servants.” 37 When the Prophet sent his companions
to preaching expeditions, he used to say to them, “Be lenient,
and do not be harsh; give glad tidings to people and do not
repel them.” 38 He also said, “You (Muslims) are a nation that is
obliged to stay lenient.” 39 Whenever the Prophet assigned
people a task, he took their capabilities into account, saying,
“Whenever I instruct you to perform a task, undertake it as
much as you are capable of it.” 40

The Prophet variously declared his religion to be easy and

lenient. For example, he said, “My people (Ummah) are
excused for their oversights and forgetfulness and for what
they are coerced into.” In a narrative, the Prophet said to a
woman coerced into fornication, “God has forgiven you,” as the
Qur’an specifies, “If anyone coerces them (into prostitution),
Allah is forgiving and merciful after they were coerced” (24:33).
According to Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfi’ī, the punishment

36 Al-Suyūtī, Al-jāmi’ Al-Ṣaghīr fī Al-Aḥādith Al-Bashīr Al-Nadhīr, vol. 1, Chapter al-Bā’

37 vol. 2, 477

38 Al-Ṣaḥīḥ by Bukhārī, vol. 1, 27.

39 Ahmad ibn Ḥanbal, Al-Musnad, vol. 5, 32.

40 Al-Suyūtī, Al-jāmi’ Al-Ṣaghīr fī Al-Aḥādith Al-Bashīr Al-Nadhīr, vol. 4, 173.

56
of perpetrators by ta’zīr 41 is not necessary, and the ruler can
spare them from the punishment, based on the hadith from the
Prophet: “Excuse the members of the (Muslim) faith for their
faults unless in the case of the ḥadd.” 42 The Prophet also gave
emphatic instructions to Muslims for tolerance towards
religious minorities and non-Muslim subjects, as he said,
“Whoever persecutes a non-Muslim subject, does him any
harm, obliges him to do what is beyond his capabilities, or takes
anything from him without his consent will be confronted by
me on the Day of Judgment.” 43

Generally speaking, Islam lays particular stress on protecting

people’s lives, honor, reputation and possessions. The Qur’an
and the Sunnah do not allow Muslims to treat unfairly at all.
Nevertheless, we sometimes come across some bizarre rulings
(fatwas) in the books of Islamic law. Here only two examples are
cited:

Ibn Ḥazm in his Al-Muḥllā gives such a ruling:

If someone digs a hole in the ground and covers it,

then tells someone else to walk over it, and he falls in
it, whether he is aware of it or not, there is no blame
either on the person orders him to walk over the hole
or on the one who digs the hole, because they do not
force him to walk and they are not the agents of his
death, but he himself is the agent by his free will. (vol.
8, 11)

41 The translator’s note: The classical Islamic legal system does not have the same category for
criminal acts as seen in modern law (such as felony, misdemeanor, and violation). Instead, there
are three major types of punishment under Islamic penal code: ḥadd, qiṣāṣ and ta’zīr. Ḥadd is a
kind of punishment that is stated in the Qur’an and/or the Sunnah. Qiṣāṣ and diya are the second
category of punishment, where Sharia specifies equal retaliation (qiṣāṣ) or monetary
compensation (diya). Ta’zīr refers to an offence mentioned in the Quran and/or the Sunnah, but
neither the Quran nor the Sunnah specify any punishment for it. In ta’zīr cases, the punishment
is at the discretion of the ruler or the judge.

42 Abū Dāvūd, Al-Sunan, the book of ḥudūd. No. 4377; Ahmad ibn Ḥanbal, Al-Musnad, vol. 6, 247.

43 Abū Dāvūd, Al-Sunan, the book of kharāj, vol. 3, 108.

57
This violent ruling (fatwa) is diametrically opposed to the legal
Islamic principle on the basis of the well-known hadith from
the Prophet: “No harm shall be inflicted or reciprocated in
Islam.” 44 Ibn Ḥazm’s cruel ruling underestimates the harshness
of the killing of people though inhumane ploys. 45

We now discuss another example of harshness in the legal

rulings from Sunni jurists. Again, in his book Al-Muḥllā, Ibn
Ḥazm quotes Imam Mālik ibn Anas as saying, “Whoever curses
Abū Bakr or ‘Umar must be flogged” (vol. 11, 415). To add fuel to the
fire, some ruled that the person who has cursed Abū Bakr or
‘Umar must be executed, as Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī, in his Fatḥ
al-Bārī bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, ascribes this ruling to some
Sunni scholars (vol. 7, 38).

No one can deny that swearing provokes enmity between

people and arouses hostility in society, especially when it is
heartbreakingly directed at important figures who are highly
respected by groups of people. The Qur’an, therefore, forbids
swearing even at the idolaters’ idols: “Do not use rude words to
those whom they call upon other than Allah, lest they
unknowingly use rude words about Allah out of their hostility”
(6: 108). The Prophet also instructs Muslims not to swear at
anyone (Ahmad ibn Ḥanbal, Al-Musnad, vol. 5, 63). He regards
swearing at a Muslim as a sin (Al- Bukhārī, Al-Ṣaḥīḥ, vol. 1, 81).
He also forbids cursing even the dead (Al- Bukhārī, Al-Ṣaḥīḥ,
vol. 1, 129). Nevertheless, the Qur’an makes no mention of the
punishment for swearing except that it says, “The recompense
for an evil deed (injury) is an evil deed (injury) equal to it; but
whoever forgives and makes reconciliation will receive his

44The translator’s note: For example, see Mālik ibn Anas, Al-Muwaṭṭa’, the hadith no. 1429;
Ahmad ibn Ḥanbal, Al-Musnad, vol. 1, 255.

45 Even more outrageous is what Ibn Ḥazm said following his cruel ruling: “There is no

difference between this case and the case of a person who deceives someone into thinking, for
example, a road is safe, while it is not… If he goes along the road and he is killed or robbed…
The person who has deceived the other takes no blame or retribution for the other’s blood or
possessions; the deceiver is not the agent of the other’s loss because he has not forced the other.”
(Al-Muḥllā, vol. 8, 11-12)

58
reward from Allah” (42:40). Moreover, in the Sunnah, there is
not a shred of evidence to support flogging or death sentence
for someone who cursed one of the Prophet’s companions, but
their responses to cursing was either to overlook the insult or
to return it at most. For example, when one of the Kharijites
cursed Imam Ali, saying, “May God kill this unbeliever. How
prudent he is!” Ali’s companions rose to attack him, but Imam
Ali said, “Calm down! An insult can only be responded either
with an insult or with overlooking the fault” 46 This statement
actually rephrases the Qur’anic verse cited above.

The prophet’s companions sometimes became angry and

swore at one another, but no one flogged or killed them for
that, as evidenced by a narrative in Al-Musnad by Aḥmad ibn
Ḥanbal:

A man swore at Abū Bakr, while the Prophet was sitting

there. The Prophet was amazed by Abū Bakr’s patience
and pleased with it as he smiled. However, the man
went too far until Abū Bakr lost his temper and
returned some of his insults. The Prophet became
annoyed and left… (vol. 2, 436)

Accordingly, there is no legal basis for the ruling that everyone

who curses Abū Bakr or ‘Umar must be flogged or killed,
though it is absolutely unacceptable to insult them, as Imam Ali
was quoted as saying about them, “They had both led
exemplary lives and dealt justly with the Ummah.” 47

46 Nahj al-Balāgha, the chapter of hikam (aphorisms), no. 420.

47 aṣr ibn Muzāḥm al-Minqarī, Waq’a al-Ṣiffīn (The Event of Ṣiffīn), 210.

59
 The Question of the
Excommunication of Muslims

The issue of excommunication (takfīr or declaring someone as

a kāfir, that is, an unbeliever) is closely associated with violence
in the Muslim world, and some Islamic sects have carried it to
extremes. Of course, any ideological issue that is taken to
extremes and leads to acts of violence will sink to oblivion and,
since it is incompatible with human nature, it will be
abandoned. An example of this in the Muslim world can be
found with the Kharijites who were divided into different
subgroups, and, because of their extremism, a majority of them
were doomed to extinction. ‘Abd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī wrote in
his book, Al-Farq bain al-Firaq: “The Kharijites’ views diverged
until they were divided into twenty subgroups. Each subgroup
declares the others as kāfirs (unbelievers)”(40). Of the twenty
subgroups, only one has survived, that is, the Ibādites (al-
Ibāḍiyya) who are less harsh than the others and are found in
Oman and North Africa now.

Most of the extremist Muslim sects have not set any criteria for
declaring someone as a kāfir, but once someone disagrees with
them in a number of issues, they immediately set out to declare
him as a kāfir. Some Muslim scholars have attempted to set
criteria for making a distinction between Islam and kufr
(unbelief). For example, at the opening of his concise, useful
book on this subject, Faiṣal al-Tafriqa bain al-Islām wa al-
Zandaqa, Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazzālī wrote, “A group claimed that
any deviation as little as possible from the Ash’arī School
amounts to kufr (unbelief)” (127). Then he disputed this extreme
view by saying,

“In conformity with this view, Abū Bakr Bāqilānī (the

great Ash’ari scholar) must be declared as a kāfir since
he disagreed with Abul Ḥasan Ash’arī on the divine
attribute of timelessness; Bāqilānī considered it to be

60
 an essential divine attribute, whereas Ash’arī thought
of it as an attribute extrinsic to the divine essence.”
Then, al-Ghazzālī generalized his argument saying,
“Disagreement with the other Islamic schools such as
the Mu’tazila and the Ḥanbalis does not lead to kufr
(unbelief).” Finally, he concludes, “Kufr arises only
when one opposes the Prophet” (133). To explain this,
we should note that Islam is built on basic beliefs such
as monotheism (tawḥīd), prophecy (nubuwwa) and
resurrection (ma’ād or ba’th) (not in their details). As a
Muslim, one cannot deny or misinterpret such basic
beliefs that both the Qur’an and the Sunnah are explicit
about. However, there are some other Islamic matters
that have not explicitly been dealt with as the basic
concepts and precepts of the Muslim faith, but
Muslims hold diverse views about these “secondary”
Islamic matters, and everyone may firmly think
he/she is right about them. Therefore, if people who
do believe in those basic beliefs of the Muslim faith
disagree with one another over these “secondary”
matters, they could not be declared as unbelievers
because they do not intend to oppose the Prophet and
his mission, even though they may be wrong in their
views. Accordingly, al-Ghazzālī considers the criterion
for kufr to be refusal to acknowledge the Prophet
rather than the misconception of the Prophet’s words
or the Qur’an. Thus, al-Ghazzālī concludes: “If you
wish to know the definition of kufr…I will say that kufr
is refusal to acknowledge the Prophet as the Apostle of
God in anything he brought (from God)” (134).

To illustrate the point, some examples are given here. As a

Muslim, no one can dispute that the Qur’an is the message from
God and the revelation to Prophet Muhammad, but the
interpretation of some puzzling Qur’anic verses, known as
mutashābihāt, is open to dispute. Another example is the Night
Journey (al-Isrā’) of the Prophet from Masjid al-Ḥarām (Mecca)

61
to Masjid al-Aqṣā (“the farthest mosque,” most probably in
Jerusalem); as a Muslim, no one can deny the very Night
Journey since the Qur’an explicitly mentions it, but the question
whether the journey was a spiritual one or a physical one is
open to dispute among Muslims, and disagreement over it does
not involve declaring either side of the dispute as kāfirs.
Furthermore, the disagreements among Muslim over caliphate
after the Prophet’s death do not require calling some Muslim
sects as kāfirs as long as the disagreements have not entailed the
refusal to acknowledge the Prophet as the Apostle of God, even
though some sects may be wrong in their claims on caliphate.

By meeting this correct criterion, a lot of Muslims’ intellectual

conflicts do not lead to hostility and excommunication and
more tolerance towards each other can be shown. On the other
hand, having a reckless disregard for the criterion has been led
to violent confrontation between Muslims. By having a glimpse
into the books written on Muslim sects, one finds out that the
Muslim Ummah has sometimes appeared deeply split on trivial
issues.

In our present-day world, those who have been slaughtering

their Muslim brothers and sisters are far removed from
meeting this correct criterion since they have used Muslim’s
disagreements over issues that are not fundamental to the
Muslim faith to bring about war, massacre and destruction.
They do not seem to appreciate the magnitude of the terrible
sin they are committing; “O me! If only my people knew (what
they should know).” What legitimate, plausible excuses have
they found for killing Muslims who are sometimes even
Sunnis?! Aren’t they alarmed to hear the Qur’anic verse: “If
anyone kills a believer intentionally, his penalty is Hell where
he will remain (forever)” (4:93)?

They may respond that all the Muslims who are not willing to
pledge allegiance with their leader (imām) are mahdūr al-dam,
that is, they must be killed without legal process. In response to
this unfounded claim, one should ask them, “How can your

62
imām’s legitimate prerogative be proved? If any Muslim group
from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq is supposed to pledge
allegiance with a leader, without the consent of the other
Muslims of the world, and takes up arms against the other
Muslims, is this not equal to turmoil and tyranny? Moreover, in
Sunnis’ view, caliphate or Imamate is legitimately established
only through a council of Muslims’ representatives (shūrā) and
a majority of Muslims’ allegiance to the Caliph or the Imam.
However, did Muslims’ representatives attend your so-called
shūrā? And then, did a majority of Muslims pledge allegiance to
your Imam, as in the Rightly Guided Caliphate of the first four
caliphs?”

Therefore, the self-proclaimed caliphate does not meet

necessary and sufficient conditions of the true Islamic state.
Yet, they slaughter people, plunder their possessions and
destroy their houses in the name of religion! Aren’t these
unlawful acts of violence considered “wrong-doing in the land”
(fasād fī al-arz)? They call themselves Sunnis but actually follow
the footsteps of the Kharijites who are opposed to Sunni Islam.
Have they never seen the hadiths in their Al-Ṣiḥāḥ and other
authoritative hadith books about the Kharijites? 48

They are responsible for the fact that many people in the world
are regarding Islam with suspicion and distrust. Their acts of
violence have unjustly brought into question the magnanimity
of the Prophet who said, “Be lenient, and do not be harsh; give
glad tidings to people and do not repel them.” 49 They are
responsible before the next generation of Muslims who will
have to preach about a religion that seems so violent to other
people. One really wonders under with pretexts they have
accepted such heavy responsibilities. Granted, they managed to
conquer an expanse of land, but will their trading this world for

48 For example, see Al-Tājj al-Jāmi’ li al-Uṣūl fī Aḥādīth al-Rasūl, vol. 5, the chapter 3 (on the

Kharijites and Dissenters), 311ff

49 Al-Ṣaḥīḥ by Bukhārī, vol. 1, 27.

63
the hereafter prove profitable? “Low was the price for which
they did sell their souls, if they but knew” (Qur’an, 2:102).

There is a lot of literature on forbidding Muslims from

declaring groundlessly others as kāfirs in the authoritative
books of hadith so that the Sunni scholar Ibn Daqīq al-‘Ȋd wrote
in his Iḥkām al-Aḥkām fī Sharḥ ‘Umda Al-Aḥkām:

Everyone is highly warned against declaring one of Muslims as

a kāfir, whereas he/she was not a kāfir. This is a vortex of grave
danger where a host of Muslim theologians and those who
belong to the Sunnites and Ahl al-Hadith has become baffled
because their views diverged, and, consequently, they have
declared their opponents as kāfirs. (vol. 4, 76)

Indeed, it is not a trivial matter to declare other Muslims as

kāfirs as evidenced by what both Shiite and Sunnite
authoritative books of hadith quoted from Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib as
saying about his militant adversaries, “They are our Muslim
brothers who have done an act of aggression against us”
(Abdullah ibn Ja’far Al-Ḥimyarī, Qurb al-Isnād, 45; and also see:
Ibn Abī Shaiba, Al-Muṣannaf fī al-Aḥādīth wa al-Ᾱthār, vol. 15,
332). This is the judgment of Ali, the leader of the faithful
people (Amīr al-Mu’minīn) and the Prophet’s successor, about
his warlike opponents. He also said to the Kharijites:

We entitle you to have three rights as long as you are

in our company: We do not bar you from entering the
Mosques to say prayers; we do not deny you your
shares from the Treasury (bait al-māl) as long as your
hands are with ours; and we do not fight against you
until you commence fighting against us. (Ṭabarī, vol.
5, 73; Ibn Athīr, vol.3, 335)

Imam Ali knew well that the Kharijites had deviated from the
true path of Islam, but he still regarded them as Muslims and
respected their religious and social rights. Accordingly, one
really wonders why the present-day extremist sects do not
respect the other Muslims’ rights, for example, by assaulting
64
schoolgirls and killing them in the name of Salafism merely
because they have attended modern schools. Let us suppose,
only for the sake of argument, that studying modern sciences
is forbidden to Muslim girls, but is death penalty for any
forbidden act in Islam, especially when the schoolgirls are not
aware of the alleged forbiddance?! Aren’t those people who
commit these atrocious crimes in the name of Salafism
considered heretics?

Moreover, for a Muslim, acquaintance with physics, chemistry,

biology etc is knowledge about the divine laws of nature which
are the manifestation of God’s will (sunnat Allah). Is the
knowledge of sunnat Allah considered to be kufr (unbelief) and
punished by death?! On the contrary, those who call themselves
muftis or mujtahids and give such cruel rulings invent lies. “Who
does more wrong than the one who fabricates a lie against Allah
to lead people astray without knowledge?” (Qur’an, 6:144)

Again, let us suppose that the schoolgirls committed a Major

Sin (kabīra) by studying modern sciences. But the ruling that
“everyone who commits a Major Sin is declared as a non-
Muslim and is punished by death unless he/she does penance”
is peculiar to the Kharijites, and it is not a Sunnite fatwa (ruling)
at all. The Kharijites told Imam Ali that everyone who
committed a Major Sin had to be declared as a kāfir. Ali argued,
“The Prophet sometimes had to punish a person who had
committed homicide. Then, the Prophet let the murderer’s
family inherit him after his execution.” 50 How did the Prophet
do so, given that if the murderer had become a kāfir by
committing the Major Sin, his Muslim family would not have
received the inheritance, according to the shariah (Islamic laws)?
The Kharijites had nothing to answer, but they obstinately did
not change their mind. The question arises if the present-day
extremists belong to Kharijites.

50 See Nahj al-Balāgha, the sermon 127

65
To return to our early argument, no one can be declared as a
kāfir unless he/she does not acknowledge the Prophet as the
Apostle of God or he/she exalts the Prophet to the status of
divinity as he said to his companions, “Do not exceed bounds
in praising me as the Christians have done in praising the son
of Mary; I am but the Lord’s servant; call me God’s servant and
his apostle” (al-Bukhārī, Al-Ṣaḥīḥ, vol. 4, 204; Ahmad ibn
Ḥanbal, Al-Musnad, vol. 1, 23). Of course, anyone who ascribes
divine characteristics to God’s servants or worships them
cannot be considered a Muslim.

66
 Jihad and Violence

It seems that the most significant part of the Muslim faith that
is closely associated with violence is jihad which is sometimes
misunderstood only as physical fighting against enemies. Jihad
literally means “endeavor,” “struggle” or “striving” as evidenced
by the Qur’an: “But if they (your parents) strive to make you
worship other than Me partners of which you have no
knowledge, do not obey them; yet, behave gracefully towards
them in this worldly life …”(31:15), or “Whoever strives hard,
he/she strives only for himself/herself; indeed, Allah is
absolutely free of all needs from all the creation” (29:6). In the
latter Qur’anic verse, jihad means a struggle or striving for one’s
spiritual or moral improvement, but a number of the exegetes
have interpreted it as fighting against enemies (e. g. see Ṭabarī’s
commentary on the Qur’anic verse in his Jāmi’ al-Bayān).
However, this interpretation sounds far-fetched since the
Qur’anic verse is from the Chapter 29 (Sura Al-‘Ankabut), which
is among the Meccan chapters which were revealed earlier to
the Prophet in Mecca, where fighting against enemies was out
of the question. Therefore, jihad was then a struggle or striving
by a Muslim for his/her moral or spiritual improvement and
for preaching Islam as well as standing fast against persecution
by Meccan idolaters.

Nevertheless, the Muslim exegetes are unanimous in

interpreting jihad as cultural, moral endeavor in a Qur’anic
verse from the chapter 25 (Sura al-Furqān): “Thus, do not obey
the unbelievers, but strive against them to the utmost with it”
(25: 52). Here the pronoun “it” refers to the Qur’an, as Ṭabarī
rephrases the verse as “strive against them to the utmost with
the Qur’an” (See his commentary on the Qur’anic verse in Jāmi’
al-Bayān). Another Muslim exegete, Ṭabrisī, has a good point
about the Qur’anic verse: “It implies that the greatest, most
magnificent jihad is theologians’ strivings for dispelling doubts

67
introduced by the skeptics and the opponents of the faith” (See
his commentary on the Qur’anic verse in his Majma’ al-Bayān).

Accordingly, we can infer that cultural jihad takes priority over

military jihad. This can also be verified by the Prophet’s
biography (sīra); he had preached Islam in Mecca for years
before his enemies intensified his companions’ persecution 51
and attempted to kill him. Then he had to migrate to Medina
and to defend the Muslims, as evidenced by the Qur’an besides
the history:

Permission (to fight) is given to those believers against

whom war is waged since they have been wronged, and
Allah is the Omnipotent who aids them with victory;
they are those who have been expelled from their
homes unjustly for no reason other than that they say,
“Our Lord is Allah”…(22:39-40)

We can conclude that Muslims’ obligation first and foremost is

cultural jihad, that is, preaching and enlightening, but if their
adversaries start violence and war against them to impede the
pursuit of God’s path, the Muslims will be allowed to defend
themselves. Yet, whenever the enemy calls on them to make
peace, they must accept as evidenced by the Prophet’s conduct
in the Ḥudaibīyya Treaty and the Qur’an’s explicit instructions:
“But if the enemy shows willingness towards peace, show
willingness towards peace and trust in Allah” (8:61). Thus,
military jihad should only be used as a last resort to defend
against aggression.

However, nowadays those who do not have any persuasive

argument and cannot challenge the contemporary culture have

51Ibn Hishām wrote in Al-Sīra, “Every tribe (in Mecca and its suburb) seized their members
who had embraced Islam. They subjected the Muslims to excruciating torture with
confinement, beating, hunger and thirst during the heat of the day in Mecca.”(vol. 1, 317). Also
see Ṭabarī, Al-Tārīkh, vol. 2, 327; Ibn Athīr, Al-Kāmil fī Al-Tārīkh, vol.2, 45. The Qur’an also refers
to the persecution of the early Muslims: “Those who have left their homes and been driven out
from there (Mecca) and persecuted to My cause…” (3:195); “…Those who migrated after trials
and persecution…” (16: 110).

68
taken up arms in the name of Islamic jihad to kill, assassinate,
or kidnap innocent people and to destroy the countries’
infrastructures whereas the Prophet had been preaching Islam
and enlightening people by means of persuasive argument for
years before he had to fight against oppressors and invaders, as
the Qur’an instructed him: “Invite to the way of your Lord with
wisdom and appropriate guidance, and reason with them in the
most gracious way” (16:125).

In his book the Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of

the Muslim Faith, Thomas Arnold closes his second chapter with
words that tend towards a common conclusion:

Thus, from the very beginning Islam bears the stamp

of a missionary religion that seeks to win the hearts of
men, to convert them and persuade them to enter the
brotherhood of the faithful. (41)

Therefore, from the Islamic point of view, war is an

inescapable, unfortunate option that Muslims have to resort to
in order to thwart invasion or oppression, as the Qur’an says
about the rationale behind war, “If Allah had not restrained
some men by others, the land would have been full of wrong-
doing (fasād)” (2:251). Consequently, if war deviates from the
course prescribed above, it will itself cause great damage, as
seen in most wars throughout the world’s history.

69
 Answers to Objections

There are opponents who has raised objections to Islam and

accused it as an ideology that teaches violence to its adherents.
Here we are going to answer some of the most common
objections:

Many Muslim leaders have denied the charge of terrorism

leveled against Islam and made a distinction between Islam
and some Muslims’ acts of violence in the same way as
Christianity has nothing to do with indisputable cruelty of
Christian crusaders. However, some skeptics have argued that
unlike Christianity whose prophet neither waged war on his
enemies nor promoted violence, Islam is a religion of sword
since the Prophet Muhammad himself waged battles against
non-Muslims and promoted violence against them.

First of all, it should be noted that according to Matthew (10:34),

Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I
came not to send peace, but a sword.” Then Jesus anticipated
fighting between his followers and their close relatives saying,
“And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household” (10:36).
Since the enmity could escalate into fighting, Jesus referred to
“sword” as a symbol of war. But why was Jesus himself never
involved in a war against his enemies? That was because he then
had no combative army in almost the same way as the Prophet
Muhammad did not fight against his enemies when he and his
followers were tormented in Mecca but other than that the
Prophet Muhammad managed to escape unharmed to Medina
by God’s grace whereas Jesus, according to Christians, was
arrested before he had a chance to escape from his enemies.
But the assertion that Jesus was even opposed to defensive war
seems to be unfounded since, according to Luke (22:36), he said
to his disciples, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment,
and buy one.” Clearly, swords did not do any good except for
war or defense, even though his disciples did not have a chance

70
to use them since they were outnumbered by their enemy. We
also read in the Old Testament about Moses’ wars against the
Midianites (Numbers, 31: 3) and Amalek (Exodus, 17:7-8). Can a
Christian claim Moses was not God’s prophet because he
fought against his enemies?

Moreover, we saw in the previous chapters that until the enemy

persecuted the Prophet Muhammad and his followers, forced
them to leave their hometown and attempted to murder the
Prophet, he had not fought against them. According to al-
Wāqidī in Al-Maghāzī, Sallām ibn Mishkam, a Jewish leader,
said about the Prophet, “Unless you collar this man [that is,
force him into war], he won’t fight; By God, this is an admirable
attitude” (vol. 1, 531). And when the Prophet decided to defend
against those who had declared war on the Muslims and sent in
an army to confront them in a battle, he used to advise his army
with such words: “Move forward in the name of Allah and by
His help and on the path of His Apostle. Do not kill any old
men, any children, or any women. Do not betray one another
in spoils, but rather bring them together. Put (the issues) right
and do good deeds, for Allah loves those who do good deeds”
(Abū Dāvūd, vol. 2, 382). By juxtaposing this with what the Bible
cited about the wars that Moses had waged on his enemies, one
can clearly discern whether Islam was a violent religion or
not. 52

The other assertion that Islam is a religion of sword since the

Prophet Muhammad himself waged battles against non-
Muslims and promoted violence against them also proves ill-
founded. First of all, by studying the history of Islam, one finds

52 Cf. the description of Moses’ war against the Midianites, according to the Old Testament:
“And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the
males. And they slew the kings of Midian ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian
captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their
goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire... And
Moses said unto them, have ye saved all the women alive?... Now therefore kill every male among
the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children
[(little girls)], that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves (Numbers, 31: 7-
18).

71
out that shortly after his migrating to Medina, the Prophet, who
whished to coexist peacefully with the Jews of Medina, signed
a treaty with them, known as the Charter of Medina. 53
According to this treaty which Ibn Hishām cited in his Al-Sīra
al-Nabawīyya, “The Jews have their own religion, and so do
their allies (mawālī) except those who act unjustly and
disloyally”(vol. 1, 501). The treaty also specifies:

The Jews must bear their own expenses (in war) and
the Muslims bear their own expenses. If anyone
attacks anyone who is a party to this Pact (al-Ṣaḥīfa),
the other must come to his help. They (parties to this
Pact) must seek mutual advice and consultation.
Loyalty gives protection against treachery. No one will
be disloyal to his ally. (Ibn Hishām, vol. 1, 501)

This binding treaty has been cited in the authoritative books of

hadith and history. Bukhārī and Muslim in their Ṣaḥīḥs,
Tirmidhī, Abū Dāvūd, Nasa’ī, Ibn Māja, and Dārimī in their
Sunans, and Ahmad ibn Ḥanbal in his Musnad have cited it, and
Ibn S’ad (in his al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā), Ṭabarī, Balādhurī and al-
Miqrīzī in their Histories have reported sections from it. The
treaty indicates the Prophet’s dedication to honoring non-
Muslims’rights, and only the Jews’ violation of the treaty
undermined the peaceful relationship between them and the
Muslims. After the Jews saw the Prophet’s increasing influence,
they dreaded the prospect of his power and entered secret
alliance with the Meccan idolaters; they even told the idolaters
that idolatry was better than Islam, as the Qur’an discloses their
disloyalty to the Muslims, Have you not taken a look at those
who were given a portion of the Book (the Torah)? They... tell

53The translator’s note: The Charter of Medina serves as the precedent for the coexistence of
Muslims and non-Muslims. For example, it stated that Muslims and Jews constituted one
political entity with Medina as their center; both of them were to offer reciprocal respect and
tolerance for the two religion. Jews were permitted to live in peace and to practice their own
religion (for its full text see: http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/macharter.htm)

72
the unbelievers that they are better guided in the right way than
the believers. (4:51).

Even the famous Jewish orientalist, Israel Wolfensohn wrote in

his History of Jews in Arab Countries, “The Jews were duty-bound
to avoid such a flagrant blunder that they said openly before
Quraish’s headmen that worshipping the idols was better than
the Islamic monotheism” (142). Thus, the Muslims’ relations
with the Jews of Medina became strained. Yet, in the chapter 5
(Sūra al-Mā’ida) of the Qur’an (which revealed to the Prophet
towards the end of his life), the Prophet is advised to forgive the
Jews’ wrongdoings: “...You will not cease to find them, except a
few, ever bent on treacheries, but forgive them and spare them
from your rebuke for Allah loves those who do good deeds. (5:
13) As to Christians, in the chapter 5 (Sūra al-Mā’ida) of the
Qur’an, we read,

You will find the nearest in love to the believers those

who say, “We are Christians,” because among them are
men devoted to learning (ecclesiastics) and men who
have given up the worldly life (monks), and they are
not haughty (5: 82).

The Prophet also signed a peace treaty with the Christians of

Najrān who had withdrawn from Mubāhala 54 (Ibn Hishām, vol.
2, 162). Again, in the chapter 5 of the Qur’an, Muslims are given
permission to come to visit the people of the book (like
Christians and Jews), to eat their food or to ask for their virtuous
women’ hands in marriage:

The food of the people of the book is lawfully fit (ḥill)

for you, and your food is lawfully fit for them. Chaste

54The translator’s note: The Event of Mubāhala was a debate between the Prophet Muhammad
and the Christians of Najrān in which either of the sides was supposed to call God’s curse down
upon whichever of the two parties was not speaking truthfully. To the Christians’ surprise, the
Prophet took his closest kindred (Ali, Fāṭima, Ḥasan and Ḥusain) with him to the debate, and
the Christians withdrew.

73
 women who are believers and chaste women of the
people of the book are lawful for you in marriage”(5:5).

Even more interestingly, according to the Qur’an, even

unbelievers who do not fight against Muslims and do not expel
them from their homeland should be treated fairly and well by
Muslims:

Allah does not forbid you to act justly and kindly with
those who do not fight against you over your faith and
do not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves
those practice justice. Allah forbids you only from
friendship with those who fight against you over your
faith and drive you out of your homes or support
others in driving you out (60:8-9).

Yet, some skeptics still cite some Qur’anic verses to conclude

that Islam promotes violence against non-Muslims. Let us
mention one of the most cited verses in this regard:

And fight against them until there is no more

persecution (fitna), and there prevail justice and faith
in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility
except towards those practice oppression. (2:193)

Firstly, it should be noted that the Arabic word fitna in the

Qur’anic verse means ‘persecuting’ the Muslims to relinquish
their faith, as clearly understood from the following verses:
“...They keep fighting against you until they turn you back from
your faith, if they can...” (2:217).

Secondly, as Muslim exegetes have said about the historical

context in which the Qur’anic verse was revealed, unbelievers
of Quraish were still striving to coerce the Muslims into
polytheism. Accordingly, the Qur’anic verse ordered the
Muslims to defend themselves against those who persecuted
and fought them only because of their devotion to their
religion. Moreover, the verse also instructed the Muslims to
stop fighting whenever their enemy ceased to fight against

74
them. How could the Qur’anic verse promote violence against
non-Muslims?!

Some Muslim extremists may object to the notion that all the
Prophet’s battles were defensive. They may say that the
Prophet sometimes had pre-emptive attacks on his enemies
as in the Battle of Badr.

In response to this objection, we should note that by searching

for the root causes of the Prophet’s battles, one clearly finds out
that they are all defensive in various forms including self-
defense, the defense of the oppressed, or the defense of human
rights, such as the right of religious freedom. For example, the
Battle of Badr was preceded by a period in which the Muslims
were persecuted by Quraish in Mecca to the point where some
of them, like Sumaiyya and Yasir, were killed after days of
excruciating torture. In addition, after the Muslims left Mecca
to escape being persecuted, Quraish appropriated their houses
and properties. Therefore, some of the Muslims who migrated
to Medina had become absolutely destitute, as the Qur’an bears
testimony to this: “To those needy emigrants who were taken
away from their homes and possessions...” (59:8); “Those who
migrated and expelled from their homes and suffered to My
cause...” (3:195).5 Then the Muslims who lived in Medina
received the news that a caravan belonging to heads of Quraish
who had already seized the Muslims’ properties was returning
from Syria. Thus, they attempted to intercept the caravan to
take their stolen properties back in fact. However, they were
faced with an army raised by Quraish of Mecca to protect the
caravan. Although the Muslims were hopelessly outnumbered,
they did not withdraw and, with divine intervention, they won
the battle. Therefore, the Muslims’ battle against idolaters of
Mecca occurred after they had been persecuted, killed and
robbed of their possessions. Can this war be considered
anything but a defensive battle? The Qur’an clearly specifies
that God defended the Muslims against their enemy in this
battle:

75
 Allah defends those who believe; verily, Allah does not
love any disloyal ingrate. Permission (to fight) is given
to those believers against whom war is waged since
they have been wronged, and Allah is the Omnipotent
who aids them with victory; they are those who have
been expelled from their homes unjustly for no reason
other than that they say, “Our Lord is Allah”…(22:38-
40)

In order to justify their acts of violence, Muslim extremists

claim that today, preaching the Muslim faith requires
military jihad. They seem totally unaware of the fact that
violent acts towards people without a prior attempt to enlighten
them is more of coercion and falsehood than jihad because
cultural jihad takes priority over military jihad, as shown in the
previous chapter. Al-Wāqidī in his Kitāb al-Maghāzī reports that
when the Prophet wished to send Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib at the head
of a group of Muslims to Yemen, Ali asked him, “How do I deal
with the people?” The Prophet replied:

When you alight in their courtyard (i.e. homeland), do

not fight them until they fight you; if they attack you,
do not fight them until they kill one of you. Even if
they kill one of you, do not fight them but spare them
to show them your forbearance. Say to them, “Will
you say that there is but one God?” And if they say,
“Yes,” say, “Will you pray?” And if they say, “Yes,” say,
“Will you take from your property and give charity to
you poor?” And if they say, “Yes,” do not ask them for
anything else. By God, if He guides a man by your
hand, it is better for you than whatever the sun rises or
sets on. (vol. 2, 79)

Instead of killing other peoples and the conquest of their lands,

this is the cause that Muslims should devote themselves to in
their encounter with those peoples. Whoever is willing to listen
to the message of the Prophet must comply with his
instructions. This must be Muslims’ dealings with unbelievers,

76
let alone other Muslims. However, today we notice extremists
killing Muslim men, women and children in the name of Islam
under the pretext that “we set out to revive Islam and establish
jihad”!

The Qur’an says about militant unbelievers who fought against

Muslims: “…Therefore, if they withdraw from you, do not fight
you, and wish to call a truce with you, Allah has opened NO way
for you against them” (4:90). This must be Muslims’ way to deal
with unbelievers who wish to call a truce with them, let alone
other Muslims who are members of the same religion.

To our surprise, we sometimes hear some extremists claim

that those Qur’anic verses which advise Muslims to treat other
people with compassion and forgiveness had all been
revealed in Mecca, and the other Qur’anic verses which speak
of aggression towards unbelievers were revealed in Medina
and, hence, rendered the former Qur’anic verses obsolete.

In response to their scepticism, we should firstly say that this

false idea results from an example of incomplete induction,
that is, overgeneralization based on a very limited number of
particular instances; there are Qur’anic verses that were
revealed in Medina, but they still instructed Muslims to treat
both other Muslims and non-Muslims with compassion and
forgiveness. For example, in the chapters 24 and 5 (Sura al-Nūr
and Sura al-Mā’ida) which were revealed in Medina according
to all the Muslim exegetes, we read about Muslims and non-
Muslims respectively: “... Let them forgive and overlook”
(24:22) and “... But forgive them (the Jews) and spare them from
your rebuke for Allah loves those who do good deeds (5: 13).

Secondly, given that Muslims regard the Prophet as a paragon

of virtue (See Qur’an, 33:21) he was full of compassion and
forgiveness towards the non-Muslims in Medina let alone the
Muslims. For instance, we have cited his gracious attitudes
towards the Hawāzin captives who were all released.

77
Thirdly, compassion and forgiveness are among moral virtues,
and moral virtues do not become obsolete since the ultimate
purpose of faith is to attain the virtues, as the Prophet said, “I
was designated to perfect the moral virtues” (Al-Baihaqī, Al-
Sunan al-Kubrā, vol. 10, 323; also see Ahmad ibn Ḥanbal, Al-
Musnad, vol. 2, 331; Mālik, Al-Muwaṭṭ’, vol. 2, 211).

In fact, such excuses for committing acts of violence come from

twisted minds not from the authoritative Islamic sources.

Some extremists claim that they comply with what the Qur’an
instructs them to do: “Kill the polytheists (al-mushrikīn )
whenever you find them...” (9:5).

One wonders how they totally ignore the previous Qur’anic

verse from the same chapter: “(The treaties are) not given up
with those polytheists (al-mushrikīn) who have fully honored
their treaties with you and helped none against you...” (9:4).
Again, in the same chapter, it says, “How can there be a treaty
before Allah and His apostle with the polytheists (al-mushrikīn)
except those with whom you made a treaty near the Sacred
Mosque? As long as they remain true to you, remain true to
them...”(9:7). Consequently, the polytheists were grouped into
two categories according to their commitment to their treaties
with the Muslims: those who breached the terms of their peace
treaty with the Muslims and those who kept their pledge and
respected their treaty with the Muslims. According to the
Qur’an, it is only permitted to fight the first group, that is, those
who breached their treaty with the Muslims through inflicting
serious harm on them, as again in the same chapter, it says,
“Will you not fight the people who breached their treaties, set
out to expel the Prophet, and aggressively confronted you
first?” (9:13). It is shocking that these extremists who call
themselves adherents of the Qur’an have drawn too general a
conclusion from a single Qur’anic verse showing a complete
disregard of its context. Aren’t they reading their aggressive
tendencies into what the holy Qur’an says in order to
misrepresent the truth?

78
They sometimes assert that they are acting on the basis of a
hadith from the Prophet quoted by Abū Huraira:

I was assigned to fight the people until they say,

“There is no god except Allah.” If they say that, their
blood and wealth are protected from me save by the
rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah.
(Al-Bukhārī, vol.4, 58)

The answer is that “the people” in this hadith does not mean all
people, but it signifies only the militant polytheists (who
engaged in a war against Muslims) for obvious reasons: Firstly,
Christians who do not testify that there is no god except Allah
because of their belief in the Trinity are excluded from the
statement quoted above since, based on the Qur’an (9:29),
Christian subjects and other people of the book are allowed to
practice their own religions in an Islamic state as long as they
pay jizya (a per capita tax).6 Secondly, according to the Qur’an
(9:4&7), polytheists (mushrikīn) who sign peace treaties with
Muslims are also excluded from the statement. Thirdly, the
word “people” (al-nās) sometimes means all people and
sometimes means a specific group of people as in this Qur’anic
verse: “Those to whom the people said, ‘The people have gathered
against you, so be fearful of them!’...” (3:173). Clearly, “the
people” in both places refers to two different and specific
groups of people. For the above reasons, “the people” in the
hadith does not include all people, but it means only the
militant polytheists.

Moreover, the extremist groups are usually at war against those

who say, “There is no god except Allah;” therefore, in actual
fact, the aforesaid hadith is against them!

The extremist groups maintain that the world is divided into

two politically distinct zones: dār al-Islam (literally, “the
abode of Islam”) and dār al-kufr (literally, “the abode of
unbelief). In their opinion, Muslims live in dār al-Islam , and
they are at war with those in dār al-kufr.

79
However, they have left out dār al-hudna (literally, “the abode
of truce”) and dār al-ṣulḥ (literally, “the abode of peace”) in their
division. Dār al-hudna includes the lands of non-believers who
have agreed to call a truce with Muslims, and dār al-ṣulḥ
includes the territories of non-believers that have a treaty of
non-aggression or peace with Muslims. The Prophet, for
example, signed a peace treaty with the polytheists at
Ḥudaibīyya, and, as long as they did not breach the treaty, he
fully respected it. Today many non-Muslim countries are in
peace with Muslims not declaring war on them, and Muslim
students are freely studying in these countries. However, the
extremists mobilize their terrorists and suicide bombers to
attack civilians of those countries. It is shocking that some of
the victims are often among children and women given that the
Prophet strictly forbade Muslims from killing them even in
wartime.

At times, they cite the acts of violence that some of the

Prophet’s companions committed and consider them as their
paragons, whereas the paragon of every Muslim is the Prophet
whom the Qur’an has called “mercy unto all creatures.” The
reference point against which Muslims’ behaviors must be
evaluated is the Prophet’s conduct rather than others’, as the
Qur’an says, “In the Messenger of God, you have a model of
excellence for one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day...”
(33:21). The Prophet used to denounce some of his companions’
violent conduct. For instance, after the famous companion
Khālid ibn Walīd, despite all his services to Islam, had harshly
treated Banī Jadhīma Tribe, the Prophet lifted his hands and
said three times, “O God, I dissociate myself from what Khālid
has done” (Ibn Hishām, vol. 4, 67; Ibn S’ad, vol. 2, 107). Then he
sent Ali to Banī Jadhīma to compensate them for their loss.
Therefore, acts of violence even by those who are considered
to be among the Prophet’s companions cannot be legitimate
excuses to follow suit, or rather, we must sometimes dissociate
ourselves from their acts. This is a rule that we must live by
while studying all incidents in the history of Islam.

In conclusion, it should be noted that such violent groups as the

Kharijites and ISIS, who have been criticized in this book,
80
regrettably, split away from the Sunnites. That is why we have
not addressed the issue of violence in other Islamic sects such
as the Ismā’īlīyya whose history witnessed an increase in
religious intolerance. Incidentally, the moderate groups of the
Sunnites, particularly their scholars, are strongly opposed to
the criminal offences committed by such groups as the
Kharijites and ISIS. 55

55The translator’s note: Any comments or suggestions about the English translation will be
greatly appreciated; please send them to [email protected]

81
 References
Abū Dāvūd, Sijistānī (2007/1428 AH). Al-Sunan. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr.

Abū Zuhra, Muhammad (2003/1424 AH). Tārīkh al-Jadal. Cairo: Dār al-Fikr al-Arabi.

Ahmad ibn Ḥanbal. Al-Musnad. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr.

Arnold, Thomas W. (1896). The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith.
Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co.

Baghdādī,‘Abd al-Qāhir. Al-Farq bain al-Firaq. Cairo: Maktaba Dār al-Turāth.

Baihaqī, Abū Bakr Ahmad ibn al-Ḥusain (1994/1414 AH). Al-Sunan al-Kubrā. Ed. Muhammad
‘Abd al-Qādir ‘Aṭā. Mecca.

The Bible (King James Version). Ed. Jim Manis(1998). Pennsylvania State University.

Browne, Edward G. (1999). A Literary History of Persia. Oxon: Routledge.

Bukhārī, Muhammad ibn Ismā’īl. Al-Ṣaḥīḥ. Cairo: Dār wa Maṭābi’ al-Sha’b.

Bulliet, Richard W. (2011). Cotton, Climate, and Camels in Early Islamic Iran. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Dīnivarī, Abū Ḥanīfa (1960). Al-Akhbār al-Ṭiwāl. Cairo.

Ghazzālī, Abū Ḥāmid (1998). Iḥyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn. Cairo: Dār Miṣr.

Ghazzālī, Abū Ḥāmid (1961/1381 AH).Faiṣal al-Tafriqa bain al-Islām wa al-Zandaqa. Cairo: Dār
Iḥyā’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabīyya.

Ḥimyarī, Abdullah ibn Ja’far. Qurb al-Isnād. Maktaba Nainawa al-Ḥadītha.

The Holy Quran. Tr. Syed Vickar Ahmad (2007). Lombard, IL: Book of Signs Foundation.

Ibn ‘Abd Rabbíh al-Andulusī (2009/1430 AH). Al-‘iqd al-Farīd. Beirut: Dār Ṣādir.

Ibn Athīr (1979/1399AH). Al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh. Beirut: Dār Ṣādir.

Ibn Ḥajar al-Haithamī (2007/1428 AH). Al-Ṣawā’iq al-Muḥriqa. Beirut: Al-Maktaba al-‘Aṣrīyya.

Ibn Ḥajar ‘Asqalānī (1301 AH). Fatḥ al-Bārī bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Cairo.

Ibn Ḥazm al-Andulusī (1321AH). Al-Fiṣal fī al-Milal wa al-Ahwā’ wa al-Niḥal. Maktaba al-Khānjī.

Ibn Ḥazm al-Andulusī. Al-Muḥallā bi al-Ᾱthār. Beirut: Al-Maktab al-Tijārī li al-Ṭibā’a wa al-
Nashr.

Ibn Hishām, ‘Abd al-Malik (2009). Al-Sīra al-Nabawīyya. Beirut: Dār wa Maktaba al-Hilāl.

Ibn Kathīr, Abul Fidā Ismail (2014). Stories of the Prophets. Translated by Muhammad Mustafa
Geme’ah. Riyadh: Darussalam.

Ibn Kathīr, Abul Fidā Ismail (2005/1426AH). Al-Sīra al-Nabawīyya. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr.

82
Ibn Khaldūn, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān. Al-Muqaddama. Bagdad: Maktaba al-Muthannā.

Ibn Nadīm, Muhammad ibn Isḥāq (1366 AH). Tr. Muhammad Reza Tajaddud. Tehran: Amir
Kabir.

Ibn Qutaiba al-Dīnivarī (1990). Al-Imāma wa al-Siyāsa. Beirut: Manshūrāt al-Sharīf Al-Razī.

Ibn S’ad, Muhammad (1322AH). Al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā. Leiden: Mu’assasa al-Naṣr.

Ibn Taimīyya (1963/1383 AH). Su’āl fī Yazīd ibn Mu’āwīyya. Damascus: Majjala al-Majma’ al-‘ilmī
al-‘arabī.

Ibn Taimīyya, Ahmad (1418 A.H./1998). Al-Mustarak ‘alā Majmū’ Fatāwā Sheikh al-Islam Ahmad
ibn Taimīyya (The Collection of Ibn Taimīyya’s Fatwas). Ed. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahmān
ibn Muhammad ibn Qāsim. Vol. 1. Riyadh.

Istakhrī, Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm (1368 A.H./1990). al-Masālik wa al-Mamālik. Ed. Iraj Afshār. Tehran:
Elmī wa Farhangī Publications.

Mālik ibn Anas. Al-Muwaṭṭa’. Cairo: Al-Maktaba al-Tijārīyya al-Kubrā.

Manāwī, ‘Abd al-Ra’ūf. Kunūz al-Ḥaqā’iq. Cairo.

Minqarī, Naṣr ibn Muzaḥim (1382AH). Waq’a Ṣiffīn. Cairo: al-Mu’assaa al-‘Arabiyya al-Ḥadītha.

Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat (2001). The Spirit of Laws. Transl. Thomas Nugent.
Kitchener, Canada: Batoche Books.

Montgomery Watt, W. (2009). The Qur’ān and Belief in a “High God”. Der Islam, 56(2), 205-211.

Muslim, ibn Hajjāj al-Neishabūrī. Al-Ṣaḥīḥ. Beirut: Dār Iḥyā’ al-Turāth al-‘Arabī.

Nāṣif, Manṣūr Ali. Al-Tājj al-Jāmi’ li al-Uṣūl fī Aḥādīth al-Rasūl. Cairo: Dār Iḥyā’ al-Kutub al-
‘Arabīyya.

Nicholson, Reynold A. (2014). A Literary History of the Arabs. New York: Routledge.

Qāzī Abū Yūsuf (1392 AH). Kitāb al-Kharāj. Cairo: Al-Maktaba al-Salafīyya.

Qāzi ‘Ayāz al-Maghribī. Kitāb al-Shifā bi Ta’rīf-i Ḥuqūq al-Mustafā.

Qurṭubī, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (2006/1427 AH). Al-Istī’āb. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr.

Rāghib Isfahānī, Al-Mufradāt fī Gharīb al-Qurān. Beirut: Dār al-Ma’rifa.

Razī, Sharīf (1998/1387AH). Nahj al-Balāgha (Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib’s semons, letters and aphorisms).
Ed. Ṣubḥī Ṣāliḥ. Beirut.

Robert K. Massie (2012). The Romanovs: The Final Chapter. New York: Random House.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1978). The Social Contract. Ed. Roger D. Masters. Transl. Judith R.
Masters. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Sarakhsī, Shams al-Dīn. Al-Mabsūṭ. Beirut: Dār al-Ma’rifa.

83
Sharqāwī, Abdullah ibn Ḥijāzī (1339 A.H.). Fatḥ al-mubdī bi Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar al-Zabidī. Cairo:
Mustafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī Press.

Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn (1964/1383AH). Tārīkh al-Khulafā. Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tijārīyya.

Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn. Jāmi’ al-Aḥādīth.

Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn. Al- Jāmi’ al-Ṣaghīr. Ed. ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd al-Ḥanafī. Cairo.

Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn (1967/ 1366 AH). Ṣaun al-Manṭiq wa-l-Kalām 'an Fann al-Manṭiq wa-l-Kalām.
Cairo.

Ṭabarī, Muhammad ibn Jarīr (1961). Al-Tārīkh. Cairo: Dār al-Ma’ārif.

Ṭabarī, Muhammad ibn Jarīr (2003/1424 AH). Jāmi’ al-Bayān fī Ta’wīl Ᾱi al-Qurān (Tafsīr al-
Ṭabarī). Riyadh: Dār ‘Ᾱlam al-Kutub.

Tolstoy, Leo (2014). My Religion. Tr. Huntington Smith. Mesa, Arizona: Scriptoria Books.

Tyerman, Christopher (2006). God’s War: A New History of the Crusades. Cambridge: Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press.

Wāqidī, Muhammad ibn ‘Umar (1966). Kitāb al-Maghāzī. Ed. Marsden Jones. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Wolfensohn, Israel (1927/1345 AH). Tārīkh al-Yahūd fī Bilād al-Arab. Cairo.

Ya’qūbī, Ahmad ibn Abī Ya’qūb (1960/1379AH). Tārīkh al-Ya’qūbī. Beirut: Dār Ṣādir.

84