The romantic ideal

Muslims emphatically insist that the Jihad, or Holy War, was only a means of defence and was never used as an offensive act. This is underlined in the explanatory notes of the Sahih Muslim:

"Jihad in Islam is not an act of violence directed indiscriminately against the non-Muslims; it is the name given to an all-round struggle which a Muslim should launch against evil in whatever form or shape it appears. Fighting in the way of Allah is only one aspect of Jihad. Even this in Islam is not an act of mad brutality....It has MATERIAL and MORAL functions, i.e. self-preservation and the preservation of the moral order in the world." ("Sahih Muslim, III, page 938 - explanatory note).

"The sword has not been used recklessly by the Muslims; it has been wielded purely with humane feelings in the wider interest of humanity" (ibid. page 941 - also explanatory note).

The materialistic purpose.

Let us investigate how this claim is supported by the actual facts of history.

"Jihad is one of the chief meritorious acts in the eye of Islam -- and it is the best source of earnings, but it shall be undertaken with the intention of self-defence." "Mishkat" II, page 340 - explanatory note).

One could also call it robbery in self-defence, if there is such a thing.

"The Holy Quran strictly prohibited conversion by force, saying:
'There is no compulsion in religion' (Sura 2:256)" (ibid).

This is reasonable - though one would, perhaps, object to war as a means of income. This income, no doubt, is at the expense of someone's livelihood. But let us look at Muslim warfare in practice:

"When an infidel's country is conquered (in self-defence?) by a Muslim ruler, its inhabitants are offered three alternatives:

1. The reception of Islam, in which case the conquered became enfranchised citizens of the Muslim state;
2. The payment of a poll-tax (Jazyah) by which unbelievers in Islam obtained "protection" and become Zimmis, provided they were not idolaters (of Arabia);
3. Death by the sword to those who would not pay the poll-tax. ("Dictionary of Islam", page 243).
   

   "....Kill those who join other gods with Allah wherever you find them; besiege them, seize them, lay in wait for them with every kind of ambush...."(Sura 9:5).

   "When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them...."(Sura 47:4).

   "....Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in Allah, or in the Last Day, and who forbid not what Allah and His Apostle have forbidden....until they pay tribute..." (Sura 9:29).

   "Say to the infidels: If they desist, what is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they return, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it Allah's." (Sura 8:39).

   "Proclaim a grievious penalty to those who reject faith." (Sura 9:3).

All of the above texts are contradicted by:

"There is no compulsion in religion".

From the Hadayah (II, page 140) we learn with regard to the Jihad, that:

"To whichever village you go and settle therein, there is your share therein, and whichever village disobeys Allah and His Messenger, its one-fifth is for Allah and His Messenger and the remainder is for you." ("Mishkat" II, page 412).

"In the actual war-field in the midst of hostilities, some concessions were sometimes given to soldiers for recreation. Captive virgin girls in war were once made lawful for the soldiers for copulation. "(ibid. page 440 and "Sahih Muslim" II, pages 705-707).

What is right today cannot be wrong tomorrow, otherwise we have an example of situational ethics.

To an objective observer the following picture emerges: interest in material gain was as important as the making of converts One cannot help feeling that the Holy War was a pretence to make booty and receive continuing taxes. This must have persuaded many a man to join the Holy War and thus to become a mercenary. This interest no doubt gave enormous political and military momentum to the cause of Mohammed. Each warrior had a right to the belongings of the man he had slain, and could sell for ransom any prisoner he had made. Women and children were also reckoned as booty and a Muslim saw no moral irregularity in taking married woman prisoners as concubines as long as they were not pregnant. He would also have his share of the combined booty, of which; however, one-fifth belonged to Mohammed (and in the case of no fight taking place, it belonged to him totally). We are aware, however, that Mohammed never lived an extravagant life or hoarded goods. On the contrary, he was most generous in every aspect, particularly to the poor, to orphans and to widows.

Taxes could be very harsh indeed as in the case of the defeated Jews who lived in Khaiber. They

"were allowed to stay in Khaiber on condition that they would pay half the produce of their lands to the Holy Prophet and in addition Jazyah tax". ("Mishkat" II, page 455, footnote).

"After the Battle of Badr, the verse dealing with the booties was first revealed. The verse introduced the rule for the first time that the spoils of war would be the property of the soldiers who actually take part in the battle...THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS why the soldiers of Islam fought tooth and nail. They would get Paradise in case of death in a Holy War, and booties in the case of CONQUEST. Jihad is therefore the best source of all acquisitions." ("Mishkat" II, page 406, explanatory note).

Jihad "is the best method of earning both spiritual and temporal. If victory is won, there is enormous booty and (sic) CONQUEST of a country, which cannot be equal to any other source of earnings." (ibid. page 253, explanatory note).

"In the battle of Muraisi with Banu Mustalig, the booties gained were nearly 200 camels and 5 000 goats. In the campaign of Hunain, the booties that fell to the hands of the Muslims were 24 000 sheep, 4 000 silver coins and innumerable camels. In the Battle of Badr and Uhud, the booties were also great." (ibid. page 406).

There is little wonder that a poem ascribed to Ali ibn Abi Talib, reads thus:

"Our flowers are the sword and the dagger:
Narcissus and myrtle are nought.
Our drink is the blood of our foeman;
Our goblet his skull, when we've fought."

The opposing concept of Jesus.

Earlier we accepted the concept of progressive revelation. Progress is seen, for instance, in Moses being told by God that the then prevailing revenge custom (you knock out my tooth and I will cut off your neck) had to be changed to: "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" - no more! This was progress.

Then in a developing process of revelation, God revealed through Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, His concept for the Christian believer:

"Blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called the sons of God....You have heard that it was said: 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' but I say to you, do not resist one who is evil, but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also....You have heard that it was said (in the Old Covenant)
'You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...." (Matthew 5:9, 38-44).

Again this is progress. This may not appear very practical--if one excludes God's doings in this world - but it is His way. It is sad to say that few, if any, nominal Christians give heed to this teaching of Christ's.

We find that Mohammed's ethical standards constitute a return or regression to the time before Christ

The question we should like to put is: How does the statement "There is no compulsion in religion" agree with: "Kill those who join other gods with Allah", "strike off their heads" and "fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it Allah's."?

Christians wonder why they are not allowed to build churches and freely propagate their faith in Islamic countries, whereas Muslims enjoy religious freedom in most non-Muslim lands, except behind the Iron Curtain. Recently the only church in Afghanistan was bulldozed down.

The claim that Muslims acted only in defence is patently untrue. What were the Muslims defending in Spain, France, India, Persia or at the very gates of Vienna? The fact that people were not prepared to become Muslims by choice ("there is no compulsion in religion") does not constitute aggression toward the Muslims. The repeated claim that booty could not have been a motive - because the Holy War must have pure religious motives - is insincere, for if it were so, booty would surely not have been made an incentive.

We believe that the promise of booty served to attain political aims. From a purely military point of view we can see no fault in Mohammed's actions, if we consider that most other military leaders acted similarly. No doubt he was a superior general. administrator, leader, social reformer and politician; but his actions and what he commissioned, do not in the view of Christians, qualify him to be the ultimate Prophet of God.

QUESTION: If God wants to extend His rule by the use of force of His followers, which we see possible, would it be a spiritual inscentive to offer booty? Why are Muslims always stressing the defensive character of Mohammed's warfare, knowing it was mostly offensive? Why were most of the conquests orientated on political and material gains, rather than on the propagation of the Almighty God?

Christians Ask Muslims: Table of Contents
Answering Islam Home Page