Hi Dan,
I've missed out a bit due to the birth of my fourth child. She's healthy and things are getting back to normal. I am going to comment on a post of yours from a few days ago, because I don't think any of your questions or concerns have been addressed
Such as Mohammad attacking and killing those within Mecca because they would not convert to his one, true religion?
This was never the Prophet's goal. The wars he fought were justified because as it points out in the next quote, the Muslims were the ones being persecuted. I will get into more detail on this later, when I discuss the verses of Quran.
Muhammad gained few followers early on, and was met with hostility from some Meccan tribes; he and his followers were treated harshly. To escape persecution Muhammad and his followers migrated to Medina (then known as Yathrib) in the year 622 CE. This event, the Hijra, marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar. In Medina, Muhammad united the conflicting tribes, and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to ten thousand, conquered Mecca.
This says it all. Instead of allowing Muhammad to preach his religion, the Meccans tried to silence him. They tortured and persecuted anyone who followed him. If they had handled it differently, their fate would have been much different.
From their base in Medina, the Muslims took to raiding Meccan caravans. In 624, they won the battle of Badr and took much booty. Now secure in Medina, Muhammad expelled the Banu Qaynuqa, one of the three main Jewish tribes, and ordered the assassination of the poetess Asma bint Marwan and then the poet Abu Afak, who had been critical of his rule. Subsequently, after each major battle, Muhammad destroyed a different one of the Jewish tribes that had welcomed him and his followers to Medina. After Uhud, he expelled the Banu Nadir, and following the Battle of the Trench in 627, the Muslims accused the Jews of Banu Qurayza of conspiring with the Meccans. They beheaded the adult male members of the Banu Qurayza, and sole the women and children as slaves.
Two big issues here. The first issue is that all the facts of the situations are not being mentioned. The Jewish tribes in question all had treaties with the Muslims of Medina, the fact that they broke their treaties and instead of defending Medina against its attackers (the Meccans) they decided to help them attack the Muslims, that is not mentioned here.
Another fact that's not mentioned is that the ruling which was carried out against Banu Qurayza was decided according to Jewish Law.
The second issue is one of evidence. The Quran is considered the primary source of legislation in Islam. Next comes the hadith, and these are scrutinized carefully by scholars, because their authenticity is not always known.
The occasions you mentioned are based on hadith literature. Any ruling derived from them, must be compared to the principals of the Quran. This approach is not held by all Muslims, but there is overwhelming evidence that it was used by the Prophet himself, as well as his companions.
You need to understand that these issues were decided in a time of war. A war which Muslims did not start, to add to that, their allies turned on them halfway through a battle. Think of this happening in a modern context. What is the punishment for desertion? For treason?
Qur'an certainly seems to follow Mohammad's mindset of violence toward those that are not willing to accept Mohammad's message.
I will show you that the Quran states no such thing, and actually sets a very high standard for religious tolerance.
9:111 Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah ? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.
This verse is very general. All it is saying is that the covenant with Allah includes all aspects of one's life, and even requires Muslims to fight and be killed if necessary. It does not define who is to be fought, and under what circumstances. These are defined in other verses.
4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
This verse is one out of a whole chapter. Forget about the historical context, you need to actually read the chapter to understand the situation being described. In most cases, a few verses preceding the verse in question will do.
Let's start with the verse before the one you quoted, who is being discussed?
"What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the
hypocrites, when Allah cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they earned? Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O Muhammad) canst not find a road." (4:89)
The discussion is about the 'hypocrites', people who were Muslims, but then reverted to disbelief. Now we know the context, so let's re-read the verse in question...
4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
The command is to not be friends with them, unless they return to Islam. If they instead, continue on in disbelief, then the ruling different. Most scholars actually stopped here and said that the ruling for leaving Islam (apostasy) is death. They did not take the context of a war into consideration, and that the act of leaving was actually desertion. Is this my opinion? Let's read the very next verse...
"Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war
on their own folk. Had Allah willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you
and offer you peace,
Allah alloweth you no way against them."(4:90)
So if these apostates seek refuge with a nation who the Muslims have a peaceful relationship with, they are not considered enemies, or if they choose to remain neutral, then the command changes. These verses are about people who not only leave Islam (in a time of war), but also choose to join the enemy and fight against the Muslims.
If an American soldier chose to leave the army and fight against the American army, what do you think the ruling would be? Replace 'American' with any country. I think it's the same.
It is true that in the early centuries of Islam, the ruling for apostasy (alone without treason) was death. But there is overwhelming evidence that this was not the practice of the prophet himself.
I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. Qur'an 8:12.
Again, you need context. Which unbelievers are being described?
This chapter is describing the events of a battle, and the very next verse defines more clearly why these people are being threatened...
"That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment." (8:13)
There is a reason for the rule. This is always the case, the Quran never commands Muslims to attack anyone just because of their different beliefs.
Here, since the events described conform to the events at the Battle of Uhud, we know that the Quran is describing the Qureysh (Meccans). When He says they 'opposed' Allah and the Messenger, we know that it is referring to the torture, persecution and murder which the Meccans inflicted on the Muslims.
Again, I ask, what are the modern standards for warfare? Should a community be allowed to fight back against it's oppressors? There were no NATO peace-keeping forces back then, coming in to 'stabilize' the situation. What other options did the Muslims have?
Sura3 3:64: Verily Allah has cursed the Unbelievers and has prepared for them a Blazing Fire to dwell in forever. No protector will they find, nor savior. That Day their faces will be turned upside down in the Fire. They will say: Woe to us! We should have obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger! Our Lord! Give them double torment and curse them with a very great Curse!
This is a threat from Allah to anyone who disbelieves in Him. This verse does not make any implications on how Muslims should treat non-Muslims. Again, there are very clear verses which do describe how Muslims should conduct themselves...
The verse you mentioned are all about fighting, ie. how to deal with enemies in a war. But where are the verses about 'who' should be fought, or what conditions are placed upon going to war.
"Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them.
Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers.
Allah forbiddeth you only those who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that ye make friends of them.
Whosoever maketh friends of them--(All) such are wrong doers. "(60:8-9)
So the people who did not start attacking Muslims, and did not drive them out of their homes, they are okay. Be nice to them, and just.
I'm not saying Muslims have never started a war, but if they did, they were in clear violation of the Quran.
"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not, aggressors. " (2:190)
Fighting is against people who have already fought against Muslims. Muslims were never commanded to start wars, or kill anyone.
The default rule for Muslims is that killing anyone is forbidden. It is a huge sin.
"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if
be had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old
with clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty) , but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth." (5:32)
Even in a war, Muslims are to be careful who they fight against...
"O ye who believe! When ye go forth (to fight) in the way of Allah, be careful to discriminate, and say not unto one who offereth you peace: "Thou are not a
believer;" seeking the chance profits of this life (so that ye may despoil him). With Allah are plenteous spoils. Even thus (as he now is) were ye before; but Allah hath
since then been gracious unto you. Therefore take care to discriminate. Allah is ever informed of what ye do."
There are numerous hadith in which the Prophet forbade the killing of women, children the elderly, and anyone not involved in the fighting.
And to add to the point about the conquest of Mecca, the Prophet did not act on the Arab custom of revenge. When he entered Mecca, he gave amnesty to all of it's inhabitants, with (I believe) the exception of 7 war criminals who were executed. Hardly a bloodbath.
Again, this is my understanding of Islam from the sources. There are some Muslims who act contrary to the teachings of the Quran, but the Quran itself will be a witness against them on the day of Judgement.
