The Jews of Banu Qurayza – Were All The Men Killed?
Channel: Jamal Badawi
File Size: 30.58MB
I'd like to focus more particularly on the Prophet. And even in the case of the Prophet, more specifically, on to question or objections raised, that he could not qualify as a prophet because of them.
The first, the way he treated non Muslims, especially allegation that he persecuted, quote unquote, or massacred Jews in Medina, because they rejected him as a prophet.
And secondly, the question of his marriages. Let me begin first with his treatment of non Muslims.
And here again, we distinguish between two periods just for the sake of ease and chronology. They met can period the first 13 years of his mission, when Muslims were persecuted, and the Medina period the remaining 10 years of his mission
we find that
the his encounters included encounters with at least two groups. One is the idolatrous herbs, the other is with Christians.
As far as the encounter with idolatrous Arabs, we find that it is subdivided also into two types, positive and negative. By that by positive we mean his encounter with those who rejected Islam, but did not seek to hurt or undermine Islam, or the prophet and how he dealt with them.
The best example for this is his uncle Abu
did not accept Islam until his death.
But he did not put obstacles before the Prophet. He even defended the Prophet and his right to preach what he believed in or claimed to have received as revelation
for that type of relationship. The Prophet peace be upon him Prophet Muhammad, more than reciprocated that courtesy. He loved his ankle in spite of his idolatrous beliefs so dearly. he respected him, and he treated him with all kindness that is owed to a peaceful, non Muslim.
But we have also the encounter in Makkah, with those who showed aggressiveness and hurt the Prophet, and Muslims and torture them, there are many examples. Let me give you two.
The first is one of his other uncle's Abu Jen.
In fact, it was reported
that one time Abuja passed by Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.
And he started abusing him verbally in a very, very ugly way.
Then there was a young lady who was overhearing this kind of conversation or discussion. She kept watching what's happening.
After Abu Jen has his vile words, again is the Prophet. The Prophet simply looked at him but did not respond.
A few minutes later,
another uncle of the Prophet Hamza was coming from his hunting trips.
And Hamza also like a Buddha did not believe or did not accept Islam and follow the Prophet.
Then he passed by that young lady
and she tells him Hamza.
Do you realize what happened to your nephew, Muhammad?
He said what
he said, Abu Jamal abused him so badly.
He said, What did Mohammed Salim do or say? He said he didn't reciprocate with even words he just left him just left moved away from him.
It was that nobility of the prophet in the face of abuse,
which is one of his characteristics that soften the heart of Hamza.
And that was actually the turning point in his life.
Hamza who was a very Husky, strong and aggressive person by nature, actually. He walked right to the Kaaba, where Abuja was sitting with the chieftains of kurush.
And he hits
him with his bow on his head, caused him an injury. And he said you abused Mohammed. I say what he says, and I follow his religion.
You can see the magic of kindness, Visa v.
Responding to evil, with evil.
Second example, is amazing in itself,
how to deal even with those who are aggressors, at least one form of dealing, there are various ways.
And that was when Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him being persecuted and rejected in Mecca,
sought to find some followers and a base, a secure base, to preach the Word of God as He received it and believed in it.
So he goes to a nearby Township, known as a thief.
He goes there to talk to people, invite them, to monotheism and so on.
And then he is marked first by adults. I'll give you an example of mockery.
One of the people and authority tells him, hmm,
you're telling me that you're a prophet.
It is either You are a liar, or truthful.
And if you're a liar, I don't want to listen to a liar.
And if you're truthful, and you're indeed a prophet, or you're too big for me to sit and listen to,
you can't win.
But then it didn't stop at that. They send their children
investigate them, again is the profit. They start pelting him with stones.
He start bleeding,
blood goes into his sandals.
And then he takes refuge
in a world of a garden that belongs to a couple of Christians, brothers.
And he sits there
making his earnest prayers to Allah.
That if you are not angry with me, or Allah, I don't care. Meaning I don't care for this suffering.
In the midst of all of that pain, physical and psychological.
He says, the angel of God came to him. And he said, for those arrogant people,
if it's okay with you, God has permitted me, we could simply crush them, between these two mountains.
Most humans perhaps would be thinking of vengeance. It's part of human nature that needs to be controlled. And the Prophet showed us how to control
and the Prophet answered the angel.
And he tells him, No.
Because I hope to Allah,
that out of these people's descendants, their children, there will be people who will worship Him.
And that was very prophetic. This is exactly what happened later.
And then he made a very noble statement.
The same statement that is attributed to another noble
Prophet, who immediately came up before Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. But about six centuries before Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, which shows that what these prophets were teaching is coming from the same light, not they're copying from one another, they are receiving from the same source of inspiration from God. He said,
Oh God, or Allah, forgive my people, for the No, not what they're doing a lot of marfil akami say, normally, Allah forgive my people, for the No, not what they're doing.
with Christians, in this early days, even
when the persecution of Muslim for their faith, including people who were martyred because of their faith,
became very hard and difficult to bear.
You know what the prophet tells his followers before even the major migration to Medina, he tells them,
you go to avicennia migrate there.
And then he started to praise a Christian.
He said, there is a kink there, Christian King, in whose return people are not wronged. So he's praising him, not necessarily for his belief, because he doesn't share this belief, for example, in Trinity and so on. But he's praising one human quality in that episode he and Christian king that is fair, and just praising him.
Now, one observation
Good relationship and courtesy continued not only when Muslims were persecuted
when Muslims even became powerful and had their own states and base in Medina later
we never hear about the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, or during, for example, the invasion of Abyssinia
and that fly in the face of mistaken interpretation that some even Muslim may have.
That it is the duty of Muslims to fight all people in the world until they accept Islam or at least come under the root of Islam. If this were true, the first implementer of that would have been the Prophet himself. There is no record whatsoever.
And that shows as I'll be showing later, that when Islam allows fighting, either for self defense or against oppression, it was not meant to include people who are not Muslims, but coexisting peacefully with Muslims. This is a clear lesson that we know from the life of the Prophet peace be upon him.
Now we go to his encounters in Medina when Muslims already migrated, and he migrated with them to Medina.
Here we find multiple encounters with non Muslims,
with the Jews, with Christians, and with idolatrous Arabs, as a whole, let's see how he dealt with each of these situation and what kind of developments took place
One of the first three major acts of the Prophet peace be upon him upon moving to Medina,
besides the body system, the Brotherhood between the migrants and settlers, and also the building of the mosque as a center not only for prayers for everything for Muslims, but the third act was known as a cipher, which can be described as Dr. Mohammed Hamid Allah, may Allah bless his soul, call it perhaps the first multicultural, multi religious, pluralistic constitution in the world, that guaranteed equal rights for everybody irrespective of their faith.
Because in that cipher, or constitution that everybody was a signatory to.
It was agreed that Muslims irrespective of their tribes, irrespective whether they are migrants, or settlers in Medina, are to be regarded as one community united by faith.
The same equal treatment were given to the various Jewish tribes. They were various tribes also, that all Jews in Medina, irrespective of their tribes, are to be regarded also as one community of faith united by their Judaism.
the sahifa are constitution guaranteed food rights and autonomy and freedom of worship and belief to everyone.
Jews and Muslims and everyone else for that matter.
Number three, it was agreed also
that Jews and Muslims should be co defenders of Medina, should any enemy attack Medina, both are obligated as two communities to stand together against any aggression and never to help any enemy attacking Medina.
that no site should give refuge to someone who committed a crime. You don't take refuge in one community neither can give refuge
That was an amazing liberal kind of treatment and approach and reaching out to what the Quran called People of the Book, applying to Jews and Christians,
especially people of the book. Because of this, there is a great deal of affinity in the relationship with Muslims. Both the three, normally called the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
shared the belief in the One God they might see or believe in God in different ways, but they all believe in the oneness of God, Revelation, scripture, prophets, responsibility for our deeds, moral codes for life. Lots, there are differences, but there are lots of common themes also that unite these people.
And may may add also one more point that should be added that all parties including the Jewish tribes in Medina, all agreed
that the head of the whole community would be the profit so you have autonomy, and the religious practice and everything but to have any organized society or a state. The head was
accepted by all to be Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
what happened later, unfortunately, is that especially three tribes one type after the other,
broke this agreement of peaceful coexistence and mutual respect, and a engaged and hostilities towards Muslims in some degree or the other.
The prophet in his position and responsibility as the enforcer of the law, the Constitution of Medina, to which everybody signed, he had the responsibility to apply fair punishment and proportionate punishment to whoever committed an offending act.
there are a number of observation about the approach and the fairness of the profit in dealing with the offending people. Number one,
it is impossible to think of any punitive action against those who broke the law as anti semitism.
It is silly to say anti semitism. Because Prophet Mohammed himself is a pure Semite. He's a descendant of Ishmael.
Arabs, through Arabs, originally, Arabs are more pure Semites than some Jews who converted to Judaism later on who came through even non Semite origins.
So it's almost like saying anti Semite Semite. There's no reason.
it is impossible to think that this punitive action against offenses was anti Jewishness.
And why anti Jewishness if the Quran mentioned the name of Prophet Moses, a lot more than the name of Prophet Mohammed himself.
And the Quran describes the original Torah Torah, giving to Moses as one that contains light and guidance.
The recognition is there, it could not be anti Jewishness. Thirdly, it is impossible to think of these punishments as punishment for people because they rejected him as a prophet, he was hoping they will follow him, but they rejected him. Why? Because the prophet and Muslims are prohibited by the text of the Quran in many verses. One is the chapter two verse 256. Let there be no compulsion in religion,
the freedom of conscience and worship is guaranteed in several places in the Quran.
With this background of what is not, let's see what was in terms of proper approach to enforcement of the law. Number one,
the profit never stereotyped and lump all the Jews together when it comes to punishment. They were together in terms of their rights, their unity and religion, that's fine. But they were never together. When punishment was inflicted, only the offending tribe was punished, not the others. That's significant. Because if you're anti group of people, you tend to lump them, like the kind of treatment Muslims are being subjected to, especially in North America. You lump everybody together, no, only the tribe that committed the offense. Secondly,
for the offense was always always
to the offense that was committed. For example, without getting into great details. In the case of Ben volcano car, it was a major offense. But in the case of banner nausea, the next incident, the offense was much greater, including conspiracy to kill the Prophet.
And in the case of banjo coryza, it was what we call today in modern legal language, high treason at the time of war.
We said earlier, and that's what we'd like to focus a little bit more on because they were, of course fatalities in this kind of punishment.
We mentioned earlier that one of the clauses of the Constitution of Medina is that both Jews and Muslims defend Medina against invaders or attackers, that none should cooperate with the enemy again is their fellow Medina, its people living in Medina and its surrounding.
And then we know historically and you read the most authentic reference on that the Sierra I've noticed
that the Arabs when they lost hope of really trying to destroy the Prophet they try to gather a huge army, a coalition
of various tribes not limited anymore to the Mexican people a huge army 10,000 strong, they surrounded Medina with the view of trying to wipe out the Muslims. Now Muslims and Jews were live living side by side in Medina.
Yet information were related to the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him that they have been contacts between the invading army and the Chief of the tribe of Banu coryza. In order to get rid of Muhammad as a problem for them,
and for them also for the pagan herbs as well as for the Jews. In fairness, Agnes hoch says that in the beginning, when that offer was made,
or encouragement to the chief of the tribe of Bonnaroo coryza, he hesitated and look at his words and acknowledgement. This is my aluminum in Mohammed in a love affair.
When another fellow Jew, who was also a head of another tribe, tried to say, that's your chance, Mohammed and Muslim, do not chance do not stand any chance they will be finished. So you better join.
In the beginning, he said, No. We have never seen from Mohammed except faithfulness, meaning respect of his agreement. So he did hesitate. But apparently, he was tempted. And he you know, in these tribes, when they make a decision, it's not the decision of the chief, they were quite democratic, is at least people of fighting age, the adults would meet and discuss a very important issue like that. And it appears that the consensus finally that yes, Mohammed never betrayed his treaty. But he doesn't stand a chance, sir, let's join hands. The Prophet wanted to make sure not to jump to conclusions. So he sent an emissary to talk to the leaders of that tribe, to see whether this
information is correct or not, not just to jump the gun on the basis of claims of imminent dangers, as you hear today, in recent times, he wanted to make absolutely sure. And he goes and talks that msre. And he said him, is it true, the treaty that we have, and he said, What treaty, what treaty, they come back and relay the information that it is true, it is coming through the horse's mouth. The treaty is no longer respected or acknowledged by that tribe.
But then they say it was the prophet who ordered the execution of the fighting men. In fact, this is a great falsification of history.
And in fact, if the Prophet even did that, it would have been perfectly his authority. He's been accepted by both parties, all parties as the head of the state. And here you have a case of high treason at the time of war when everybody was in danger, Muslims in particular, and you get a stab in the back from within.
What would any state do any head of a state do in a case like it would have been his authority, even if he ordered the capital punishment for those responsible for that betrayal. But in fact, he didn't even use that authority.
It was when he was besieged by the head of hypocrites in a saloon.
He suggested that the that tribe, the offending tribe, chooses its own arbitrators.
its own arbitrator and whatever decision he comes up with, it is binding. What happened like brothers from chat said that I teach not only Islamic Studies, I teach also management more particularly industrial relations. And I know like many of you also in the legal profession, that when you talk about arbitration as opposed to conciliation or mediation, arbitration means that you choose someone who is mutually accepted by both parties. Yet the Prophet was so generous and so lenient, that he says you choose your own arbitrator. And they did. And you know how they chose, they chose a man by the name of Savage, and why they chose him, because he was their ally, before
Islam came to Medina was very close to them. And he was familiar with their Torah and their system. Even though he was not a Jew himself. They they chose him.
And sad that Nomad stands there, and addresses both the prophet and Muslims as well as the Jews, this particular tribe bundle coryza.
And it's basically trying to get approval from them that if I come up with a decision, would everybody abide by it? And by the way, he did not ask that question again, anyone in industrial nation or law, you know that arbitration is final and binding. There could be no challenge for the arbitrators decision, even in modern legal systems unless there is a proof of bribery or violation of basic rules of common law law.
Refusing to hear evidence and so on. But otherwise, you don't say the arbitrator granted us 5% increase in pay. But we don't agree. So we're not going to implement it. No, once you agree to arbitration, you know that the decision is final and binding, this is very clear and acceptable principle.
And so the standard I say is to the tribe of Banu coryza, I am going to rule on you, in accordance of your own Torah, in accordance with your own Torah which you provide, of course, for capital punished, at least for fighting men, the women and children were spirit yet they keep saying the Prophet massacre. It is true that the Prophet agreed with his judgment, but he didn't have a choice to agree it was an arbitration decision that everybody agreed to accept. So I hope that this clarified some of those distortion that sometimes we hear in the media or some other writings, a second encounters with Christians.
Here again, we find the positive and negative in the case of Jews, they have been the positive and negative they were good relationship at one point until they started breaking the agreement. So every situation was dealt with accordingly. With Christians also there was the positive and negative example of the positive when the Christians of Iran, the region of Iran, which is now in Yemen, sent their emissaries to find out about Islam and talk to the Prophet peace be upon him. He was so courteous with them, he received them cheerfully. And you know, where he took them. He hosted them in his own mosque,
in his own mosque, and he let them speak freely about their beliefs. He answered that question, and so on. Some narrators say that at one point in this discussion, the Christian group said, Can we be excused to go out, says, Why is that said we want to do our prayers. He said, you're welcome to do it.
Imagine the hospitality that he showed to the to his guests. In fact, we know historically, that there have been instances where some of those Christian groups that were several who came to see him actually accepted Islam and the Quran seem to refer to that, because when they accepted Islam, they were rebuked by the Mexican idolatrous people, and the Koran report them as saying, peace be with you, you know, for us, our deeds to you your deeds, we seek no argument with those who are ignorant. The Quran actually make reference so they were cases of very positive interaction, aside from what happened, of course in in Makkah, in terms of their relationship with a person.
But then there was also the negative and it has to be dealt with.
There were cases when the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him sent memorizers of the Quran in order to teach the Quran to certain tribes, they were killed.
There were case of a Christian King assassinate, you know, assassinate where the tribe of Arabs in the northern part of Arabia because of their proximity to Byzantium, they became Christian and one of their kings, the prophet sent them as an emissary to him, he kills him.
There was another case. And we know of course, in international law today, to deliberately kill an ambassador of another country is an act of what, it's an act of war. It's not just against one particular person.
But it went beyond that, to gathering to the gathering of a huge army, a huge army, from the Byzantine Empire, of course, who could not whose rulers and emperors could not stand the religion that says everybody's free in the sight of God, all of us are slaves of God. God is the only master calling for equality, like some of them used to say even this religion is going to turn our slaves against us.
And the Prophet did Marsh actually to the place which is called taboo. taboo now is a city in the northern part of Saudi Arabia. But fortunately, the the Byzantine army dispersed and there was no better.
So there were cases also where battles took place, and later on when aggression again, was repeated or was prepared for it was aborted also, by action against aggression. And there is no bones about it. The Quran is quite clear that you have only two reasons to go to the battlefield. And some of you might have heard the BBC Asia radio, there was an interview with Sheikh Abdullah Hakim and myself. It was made clear there that so long as people are living and coexisting in peace, you have no right to fight against them. The two reasons for fighting in the battlefield or jihad, the combative type of jihad, which is one of many is either aggression or oppression. The four is quite
clear in chapter two verses 190 through 194
begins by saying, fight in the way of God, those who fight against you, but commit no excesses or aggression, for God doesn't love the aggressor, or those who commit access it can be translated both ways. Second reason is found a couple of verses after fight until there is no more oppression. And religion belongs to God, that means there will be freedom of religion for Muslim and others as well.
These are the only reasons and when there were cases and there were cases of oppression and aggression, that justifies again, fighting against them, to protect peace and to protect freedom as well. The third encounter, we talked about with Jews, Christians encounter with Arabs,
you know, the tribal society in Arabia, one has to understand that it was a very violent world in which Islam was born. If you read the book by Karen Armstrong, about the life of the Prophet, she has an very interesting statement, which she said, she says that Islam was born in a very violent world, you know, of this rivalry between the Byzantium and the Persian and all of this. And you didn't have Kofi Annan or the United Nation, if they were good enough for stopping conflict, even there was nothing like that. So to survive, you've got to deal with the situation as it arises. But the prophet tried again, to avoid bloodshed. How did he do that? They used to send expeditions to
the tribes surrounding Medina. Why? Because there is a great fear that they might come under pressure and intimidation, even from the dominant Mexican tribe of Christ, to join forces with them against Muslims.
In some cases, some of those people said, Look, Muhammad, peace be upon him.
We give you our word, we're not gonna fight against you. We're not going to help anyone fighting against you, in other words, a mutual, you know, peaceful relationship with you. The Prophet never said no, but you have to come under our control or rule. And this is known actually, as a term technical term. MOA da se sobre la, la da, da da means having a peaceful agreement, leave them alone, but will not touch. The motto of the Prophet peace be upon him and his reach out to these tribes is very interesting. As you compare it with Mr. Bush's statement.
He said, basically, I mean, his approach can be summed up if you're not with us, don't hurt us. Not an arrogant, tyrannical, undemocratic statement. If you're not with us, you're with the enemy.
That's undemocratic. It doesn't give me a chance to say I am again is the enemy. And again, it's your rash, policy and deception. Can you take that position?
No, you're not entitled, with us or with the enemy and the enemy are terrorists. So you're a terrorist, and terrorists can be killed anywhere.
If you're not with us, don't hurt us. See the fairness. And we're talking 1400 years before the civilized
that we are living in today.
But then they were aggression. Also, in the case of Arabs like Jewish and Christian.
This was the positive there was the negative also and it has to be dealt with for Muslim to survive, or as Islam would have been, as the Arab say, for sabarkantha would have disappeared
from the face of the earth.
And assault after assault was made against Muslims by the Mexican Arabs and their allies.
The Prophet was giving their permission for the first time, not in Mecca, in Medina and later in Medina.
To fight to fight back to preserve their existence and defend their survival, which is a basic human right for anyone.
No wonder, as the commentators of the Quran indicate that the first verse that was revealed in the Quran that ever gets permission for Muslim to fight back is inserted Hajj, that's chapter 22. In the Quran, which says permission has been given to the believers,
those who have been oppressed, that indeed wrong has been done to them that Allah is able to give them victory, the first ever that gift permission. And by the way, some interesting remark, one time I was discussing with a Christian friend of mine, and he said, Look, your prophet engaged in a battlefield.
Yet, Prophet Jesus, or Jesus never lifted a finger even and maintained his peace throughout his mission. I asked
How long was the mission of Jesus? He said most scholars say, three years. He said, Indeed, we love Jesus, we believe in him and he should get credit for with holding his hands and asking his followers to withhold their hands for a complete three years under persecution.
But don't you also give credit to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, that he withheld his hand for 13 years, not three years, 13 years in Makkah, before even permission came to fight back in Medina.
And the situation was different from the time of Jesus to the time of Prophet Mohammed. Again, you cannot compare the two situations historically, and put them in the same
He had, I'd like to indicate one thing,
a particular incident that was very important in terms of the shaping of the Muslim etiquette in the battlefield, that unfortunately, in many, including some Muslims, no apology, the Quran says you have to say the truth even if it's against yourself, or your close skins.
Many Muslims even have grossly misinterpreted that reference in the Quran. How many times have you heard in polemical literature and assaults on Islam and all in all media?
That the Quran teaches hatred and violence? It sanctions it even commands its followers because they say the Quran say, Go and kill the unbeliever, wherever you find them. Is there anyone here who hasn't heard that yet? I'm sure you've heard it. Islam say go and kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. First of all, first mistake,
It doesn't say unbelievers.
Those who know Arabic it says al mushrikeen. And mushrikeen is a term that has never been applied as a title for the people of the book. It has been used in this context to refer to idolatrous Arabs. mistake to
it, the verse in chapter nine, verse five is taking totally out of context, historical and textual.
How historical, I'll give you the background.
After the Muslims migrated to Medina,
and about the six years after migration to Medina, Muslims wanted to go back for pilgrimage.
And that might have been also intended as a peaceful gesture towards the Meccans that they're coming for worship, not for fight, every sign and every precaution was made, that they appear to be coming only for pilgrimage. They're not coming with arms and you know, all the shields and so on. They were stopped, intercepted and stopped at the outskirts of Mecca.
Muslims were irritated that they preventing them from reaching the house of their father Abraham, the Kaaba.
And we're ready to fight and the Prophet, and that was his characteristic. By the way, whenever it was possible, to have a just peace, he never opted for Battlefield. He said no, by God, if they negotiate anything with me, that maintains the peace, and keep the kinship relationship, I will respond positively to that.
The pagan Arabs came with great arrogance and negotiation took place. And they showed a great deal of arrogance and unfairness. Yet the Prophet accepted. But some of the important provisions in this treaty is that they will be peace for 10 years, no fighting between either side. And that indeed was the major thing that that Prophet was looking after. With looking at. There were other concession Muslim gave.
That sounded unfair to them. But the main thing the Prophet was interested in is to remove the barrier of communication between human beings. And indeed, it is very interesting to note that within nearly a year and half a year and have have peaceful relationship where people can communicate without this hatred and stereotypes, more people entered into the fold of Islam than those who entered in the previous 19 years of conflict. More people in that year and a half than 19 years. And historically speaking, Islam spread much faster during the periods of peace, not conflict and hatred.
Right until this moment, when Muslims situation is pathetic in every respect, Islam continues to spread. So long as there is communication between human beings no one that
Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him used to say, Please, hello vainio vainness Please let me communicate with people. When he was in Mecca, they try to prevent people even from listening to him. The Quran quotes them say don't listen to this Quran and make noise to have the upper hand.
They intercept the pilgrims who are coming, because Arabs also used to do a pilgrimage in spite of their paganistic ideas.
They intercept them and warn them don't talk to Mohammed he's a magician, he's dangerous man and why they didn't want people to listen to him.
Now, when that took place, like I said, the Islam spread, but apparently some elements did not like that at all. And all of a sudden, unexpectedly, the aggression come against Muslims and their allies, and some people are killed, called bloodedly. At night.
Who broke the treaty? The other side, not the profit, the profits respected every iota of his agreement. Now these are murderers. And what is the punishment of cold blooded murder? on that scale? execution? There's no question I know people have different feelings and views. But even states today differ as to whether the exclusion as a punishment is inhuman or not. There are countries that accept that as well.
Now, it is in the context of this event, that the Quran refers the event and what followed later on investigation for another battle, even after Makkah was opened,
that the Quran speaks about those who deserve to be killed because they are like war criminals. They are like war criminals. It is only those that the Quran speak that in the battlefield, you kill them wherever you find them, because they deserve it. It is a just punishment for them.
And to show that this is the correct way of understanding it, you go and read not only one part of an area, nine, five, the famous one, but read the entire section from verse one to 13 or 15. And you find the reason given number one, exclude even among the pagan Arabs, the Mexican people exclude exclude those who respected the treaty and never betrayed the Prophet.
Number two, it gives the very reason why Muslims are allowed to fight them because they say well home by the hour Amara, they started they weren't the ones who started aggression against you in the first place. Number three, the Quran itself says lacuna. Fimo man in England, well, other than that they never observed any kinship, relationship or even treaty that they have signed. So it is obvious it is not a general statement about any non Muslim. It is not a statement about all idolatrous Arabs, it is only again is those criminals who committed the cold blooded murder.
Another are further proof is found in the Quran itself. The two verses that many scholar considered the Constitution of the normal relationship between Muslims and peacefully coexisting non Muslims. They appear in chapter 60, verses eight and nine that basically says any non Muslim,
Jew, Christian, you know, you name it, pagan, even those who do not fight you because of your religion as Muslims, or drive you out of your homes, take away your rights, your basic rights and oppress you, you should deal with them in justice and Bill. Berry is not just kindness, because it is the same term used in the Quran and Hadees to designate the nature of one's relationship with his or her
parents and relationship with parents is not only justice and kindness, but love and respect, even if you don't share certain beliefs. The basic love as a human being and respect are included. It is not by chance that God chose that particular term to designate how to relate to those who mean no ill to you or not oppressing you