Friday, 7 March 2014

A Faithful Muslim Who Proved That He Wasn’t Treacherous A Look at Nidal Malik Hasan's Actions in Light of Islamic Teachings Pt. 1b

From Part I

Returning to the issue at hand, according to the Muslim scholars Q. 9:5, commonly referred to as the “sword verse,abrogated every treaty and peace agreement that Muhammad had with the disbelievers:

This is the
Ayah of the Sword...

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honourable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayatallowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations... In the two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn ‘Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, EVERY TREATY, AND EVERY TERM."
Al-‘Awfi said that Ibn ‘Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise ever since Sura Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi’ Al-Akhir." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Surat Al-A’raf to the end of Surah Yunus, abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri
[Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: May 2000] Volume 4, pp. 375, 377; capital and underline emphasis ours)

The following quotes were taken from this

Ibn Juzayy:
(Then when the sacred months are over)
i.e. the four months designated for them. Those who say that they are Shawwal, Dhu’l-Qa’da, Dhu’l-Hijja and al-Muharram, says that they are the well-known Sacred Months - with the addition of Shawwal and omission of Rajab. They are called "sacred" because the majority dominates in an Arabic phrase. Those who say that they last until Rab' ath-Thani calls them sacred because of their inviolability and because fighting in them was forbidden.
(kill the mushrikun wherever you find them)
ABROGATING EVERY PEACE TREATY IN THE QUR’AN. It is said that it abrogates, "by setting them free or ransom." (47:4) It is also said that it is abrogated by it and so setting them free and ransom are permitted. (seize them) means to capture, and the one taken is the captive.
(If they make tawba)
after disbelief. Then He connects belief to the prayer and zakat. That is an indication that one should fight anyone WHO ABANDONS THE PRAYER AND ZAKAT as Abu Bakr as-Siddiq did. The ayat encompassed the meaning of the Prophet’s words, "I am commanded to fight people until they say, 'There is no god but Allah and establish the prayer and pay the zakat." (let them go on their way) granting them security

This [Q. 9:5] is an
Ayat of the Sword WHICH ABROGATES PARDON, TRUCE AND OVERLOOKING. (seize them) is used as evidence for the permission to take captives. (and besiege them) is permission for besieging and raiding and attacking by night. Ibn Abi Hatim reported that Abu 'Imran al-Jawfi said that ribat in the way of Allah is found in the words, "lie in wait for them on every road." (if they make tawba and establish the prayer and pay the zakat, let them go on their way) Repentance from shirk is not enough to let them go their way until they establish the prayer and pay the zakat. Ash-Shafi'i took this as a proof FOR KILLING ANYONE WHO ABANDONS THE PRAYER and fighting ANYONE WHO REFUSES TO PAY ZAKAT . Some use it as a proof that they are kafirun. (Capital and underline emphasis ours)

The Quran also informs Muslims to break their treaties with those who have proven to be treacherous:

And if thou fearest treachery from any folk, then throw back to them (their treaty) fairly. Lo! Allah loveth not the treacherous. S. 8:58

Again, what could be more treacherous than Western armies “invading” Muslim lands and aiding them in that purpose? In fact, is there anything worse from an Islamic point of view than western forces coming to Muslim lands with a purpose of establishing democratic governments based on western values as opposed to helping to set up a system which seeks to implement Shariah or the rule of Allah as “revealed” in the Quran and the sunna of his messenger? And what could be evil Islamically speaking than Muslims inviting or allowing such “infidel” armies to come and wreak “havoc” in their lands by taking over in order to set up their “infidel” forms of government?

After all, didn’t we read where the Quran warns Muslims against taking Jews and Christians as their allies (cf. Q. 5:51)? And didn’t we also see how Muslim scholars claim that it is expressly forbidden to fight alongside the “disbelievers,” especially when its against fellow Muslims? Here is another example:

Praise be to Allaah.
Taking the kaafirs as friends (muwaalaah)
means supporting them and helping them in matters of kufr, SUCH AS THE MUSLIMS FIGHTING ALONGSIDE THE KUFFAAR, such as when the kaafirs launch an assault against a Muslim country and a Muslim befriends them and supports them and helps them in fighting against that country, whether that is with weapons or by supplying them with anything that will help them to fight the Muslims. This is muwaalaah, or a type of friendship THAT IS HARAM, because it means joining them and supporting them against other Muslims.

With regard to seeking their help, that depends of the purpose to be served.
If that serves the Muslims’ interests, there is nothing wrong with it, on the condition that we must beware of their evil and treachery and there be no risk of them betraying us. But if that serves no interest then it is not permissible to seek their help because there is no good in them
. (Fatwa No. 10421: The difference between taking the kaafirs as friends and seeking their help; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Now as far as oaths are concerned we find in the so-called sound-narratives Muhammad expressly telling his followers that they could break their word and promises if it means doing something that is better:

Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Samura:
The Prophet said, "O 'Abdur-Rahman! Do not seek to be a ruler, for if you are given authority on your demand then you will be held responsible for it, but if you are given it without asking (for it), then you will be helped (by Allah) in it. If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 260)

Again, what could be better from an Islamic perspective than killing the “enemies” of Allah who were planning to “attack” Muslim lands?

Muhammad himself had no problems breaking his oaths:

O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which Allah has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Allah has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.) and He is the All-Knower, the All-Wise. And (remember) when the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives (Hafsah), so when she told it (to another i.e. 'Aishah), and Allah made it known to him, he informed part thereof and left a part. Then when he told her (Hafsah) thereof, she said: "Who told you this?" He said: "The All-Knower, the All-Aware (Allah) has told me". If you two (wives of the Prophet, namely 'Aishah and Hafsah) turn in repentance to Allah, (it will be better for you), your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet likes), but if you help one another against him (Muhammad), then verily, Allah is his Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.), and Jibrael (Gabriel), and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers. S. 66:1-4 Hilali-Khan

We are told that these verses refer to Muhammad making an oath to his wife Hafsah that he would not have conjugal relations with his slave girl Mariah the Copt anymore:

O Prophet! Why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, in terms of your Coptic handmaiden Māriya — when he lay with her in the house of Hafsa, who had been away, but who upon returning [and finding out] became upset by the fact that this had taken place in her own house and on her own bed — by saying, ‘She is unlawful for me!’, seeking, by making her unlawful [for you], to please your wives? And God is Forgiving, Merciful, having forgiven you this prohibition. (
Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

Verily God has prescribed, He has made lawful, for you [when necessary] the absolution of your oaths, to absolve them by expiation, as mentioned in the sūrat al-Mā’ida [Q. 5:89] and the forbidding of [sexual relations with] a handmaiden counts as an oath, so did the Prophet (s) expiate? Muqātil [b. Sulaymān] said, ‘He set free a slave [in expiation] for his prohibition of Māriya’; whereas al-Hasan [al-Basrī] said, ‘He never expiated, because the Prophet (s) has been forgiven [all errors]’. And God is your Protector, your Helper, and He is the Knower, the Wise. (
Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

However Allah permitted him to break his word, something which he did often whenever it suited his purposes:

Narrated Zahdam: We were in the company of Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari and there were friendly relations between us and this tribe of Jarm. Abu Musa was presented with a dish containing chicken. Among the people there was sitting a red-faced man who did not come near the food. Abu Musa said (to him), "Come on (and eat), for I have seen Allah's Apostle eating of it (i.e. chicken)." He said, "I have seen it eating something (dirty) and since then I have disliked it, and have taken an oath that I shall not eat it." Abu Musa said, "Come on, I will tell you (or narrate to you). Once I went to Allah’s Apostle with a group of Al-Ash'ariyin, and met him while he was angry, distributing some camels of Rakat. We asked for
mounts but he took an oath that he would not give us any mounts, and added, ‘I have nothing to mount you on.’ In the meantime some camels of booty were brought to Allah's Apostle and he asked twice, ‘Where are Al-Ash'ariyin?" So he gave us five white camels with big humps. We stayed for a short while (after we had covered a little distance), and then I said to my companions, ‘Allah's Apostle has forgotten his oath. By Allah, if we do not remind Allah's Apostle of his oath, we will never be successful.’ So we returned to the Prophet and said, ‘O Allah's Apostle! We asked you for mounts, but you took an oath that you would not give us any mounts; we think that you have forgotten your oath.’ He said, ‘It is Allah Who has given you mounts. By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67 ,Number 427)

Keep in mind that the oath mentioned in Q. 66 was not a vow or oath sworn to Allah, but an oath sworn by Muhammad to his wives. Now if Muslims can even dissolve oaths to their wives, why should anyone assume they cannot dissolve oaths sworn to foreigners and infidels with the explicit backing of Islamic teaching?

Muhammad also expressly violated one of the stipulations of the treaty which he made with the Meccans:

After Al-Hudaybiyyah, Emigrant Muslim Women may not be returned to the Disbelievers
Surat Al-Fath, we related the story of the treaty at Al-Hudaybiyyah that was conducted between the Messenger of Allah and the disbelievers of Quraysh. In that treaty, there were these words, "Everyman (in another narration, EVERY PERSON) who reverts from our side to your side, should be returned to us, even if he is a follower of your religion." This was said by `Urwah, Ad-Dahhak, `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd, Az-Zuhri, Muqatil bin Hayyan and As-Suddi.

So according to this narration, this
Ayah specifies and explains the Sunnah. And this is the best case of understanding. Yet according to another view of some of the Salaf, it abrogates it.

Allah the Exalted and Most High ordered His faithful servants to test the faith of women who emigrate to them. When they are sure that they are faithful, they should not send them back to the disbelievers, for the disbelievers are not allowed for them and they are not allowed for the disbelievers. In the biography of `Abdullah bin Abi Ahmad bin Jahsh in
Al-Musnad Al-Kabir, we also mentioned that `Abdullah bin Abi Ahmad said, "Umm Kulthum bint `Uqbah bin Abi Mu`ayt emigrated and her brothers, `Umarah and Al-Walid, went after her. They came to Allah’s Messenger and talked to him about Umm Kulthum and asked that she be returned to them. ALLAH ABOLISHED THE PART OF THE TREATY BETWEEN THE PROPHET AND THE IDOLATORS ABOUT THE WOMEN PARTICULARLY. So He forbade returning Muslim women to the idolators and revealed the Ayah about testing them" …

Then `Umar bin Al-Khattab divorced two of his wives, who were idolatresses, and one of them got married to Mu`awiyah bin Abi Sufyan, while the other got married to Safwan bin Umayyah.

Ibn Thawr narrated that Ma`mar said that Az-Zuhri said, "This
Ayah was revealed to Allah's Messenger while he was in the area of Al-Hudaybiyyah, after making peace. He agreed that WHOEVER COMES from the Quraysh to his side, WILL BE RETURNED TO MAKKAH. When some women came, this Ayah was revealed. Allah commanded that the dowery that was paid to these women be returned to their husbands. Allah also ordered that if some Muslim women revert to the side of the idolators, the idolators should return their dowery to their Muslim husbands ... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) (Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun), Volume 9, pp. 599-600, 602; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Al-Tabari, another renowned Muslim expositor, also admitted that Muhammad broke the treaty by refusing to return the Meccan women who had defected:

… So the Messenger of God said, "Write: This is that whereon Muhammad b. ‘Abdallah has made peace with Suhayl b. ‘Amr. The two have agreed on these terms: that warfare shall be laid aside by the people for ten years, during which the people shall be safe and refrain from [attacking] each other; that, WHOEVER shall come to the Messenger of God from Quraysh WITHOUT THE PERMISSION of his guardian, [Muhammad] shall return him to them; that WHOEVER shall come to Quraysh from those who are with the Messenger of God, they shall not return him to [Muhammad] …” (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, 1997], Volume VIII, p. 86)


Ibn Ishaq added in his account: Umm Kulthum bt. ‘Uqbah b. Abi Mu‘ayt emigrated to the Messenger of God during that period. Her brothers, ‘Umarah and al-Walid b. ‘Uqbah, went to the Messenger of God to ask him to return her to them ACCORDING TO THE TREATY BETWEEN HIM AND QURAYSH AT AL-HUDAYBIYAH, BUT HE DID NOT DO SO:
GOD HAD REJECTED IT. (Ibid., p. 92; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

A more recent Muslim writer, the late Muhammad Asad, in his notes to Q. 60:10, confirms that women were included within the agreement between Muhammad and the pagans:

11 Under the terms of the Truce of Hudaybiyyah, concluded in the year 6 H. between the Prophet and the pagan Quraysh of Mecca, any Meccan minor or other person under guardianship who went over to the Muslims without the permission of his or
HER guardian was to be returned to the Quraysh (see introductory note to surah 48). The Quraysh took this stipulation to include ALSO MARRIED WOMEN, whom they considered to be under the "guardianship" of their husbands. Accordingly, when several Meccan women embraced Islam against the will of their husbands and fled to Medina, the Quraysh demanded their forcible return to Mecca. This the Prophet refused on the grounds that married women did not fall within the category of "persons under guardianship". However, since there was always the possibility that some of these women had gone over to the Muslims not for reasons of faith but out of purely worldly considerations, the believers were enjoined to make sure of their sincerity; and so, the Prophet asked each of them: "Swear before God that thou didst not leave because of hatred of thy husband, or out of desire to go to another country, or in the hope of attaining to worldly advantages: swear before God that thou didst not leave for any reason save the love of God and His Apostle" (Tabari). Since God alone knows what is in the heart of a human being, a positive response of the woman concerned was to be regarded as the only humanly attainable - and, therefore, legally sufficient - proof of her sincerity. The fact that God alone is really aware of what is in a human being's heart is incorporated in the shar’i principle that any adult person's declaration of faith, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, makes it mandatory upon the community to accept that person - whether man or woman - as a Muslim on the basis of this declaration alone. (The Message of the Qur’an, translated and explained by Muhammad Asad, pp. 1097-1098; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

Another more recent Muslim translator, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, did as well:

Under the treaty of Hudaibiya [see Introduction to S. lxviii, paragraph 4, condition (3)], women under guardianship (INCLUDING MARRIED WOMEN), who fled from the Quraish in Makkah to the Prophet’s protection at Madinah
WERE TO BE SENT BACK. But before this Ayat was issued, the Quraysh had already broken the treaty, and some instruction was necessary as to what the Madinah Muslims should do in those circumstances… (Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary, p. 1534, fn. 5422 on Sura 60:10; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

And here is what Ali wrote regarding the conditions of the treaty:

4. A peaceful Treaty was therefore concluded, known as the Treaty of Hudaibiya. It stipulated: (1) that there was to be peace between the parties for ten years; (2) that any tribe or person was free to join either party or make an alliance with it; (3) that if a Quraish person from Mecca, under guardianship, should join the prophet without the guardian’s permission, he
(OR SHE) should be sent back to the guardian, but in the contrary case, they should not be sent back; and (4) that the Prophet and his party were not to enter Mecca that year, but that they could enter unarmed the following year. (Ibid., introduction to Sura XLVIII (Fat-h), p. 1389; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

In light of this Muhammad stands condemned by his own words since he is reported to have said the following:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr: The Prophet said, "Whoever has the following four (characteristics)
will be a pure hypocrite and whoever has ONE OF the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy unless and until he gives it up.
1. Whenever he is entrusted, he betrays.
2. Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie.
Whenever he makes a covenant, he proves treacherous.
4. Whenever he quarrels, he behaves in a very imprudent, evil and insulting manner."
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 33)

Hence, according to the Islamic sources Muhammad was a treacherous hypocrite for breaking the covenant he had made with the pagans!

Since the Quran sets forth Muhammad as model for the believers to emulate,

Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much. S. 33:21 Hilali-Khan

And verily, you (O Muhammad) are on an exalted standard of character. S. 68:4 Hilali-Khan

It is not surprising that Major Hasan broke the “covenant” he had with the disbelievers in order to do that which was in the best interests of Islam and Muslims.

It is now time to move on to
part 2.

Muslim dawagandist Bassam Zawadi: Nidal Malik Hasan clearly committed treachery because: 1) He was under a covenant with the US government and military.
2) He broke that covenant without informing the other side.
It is apparent that Zawadi hasn’t bothered to study Major Hasan’s power point presentation. In that presentation which was given two years before Nidal Hasan went on his murder spree he had warned the U.S. that they suffered the risk of potential attacks if they refused to allow Muslims the right to refuse to join U.S. forces in their military campaigns against fellow Muslims.
In slide 2 Hasan writes:
- Identify what the Koran inculcates in the minds of Muslims and the potential implications this may have for the U.S. military.
- Describe the nature of the religious conflicts that Muslims may have with the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Identify Muslim soldiers that may be having religious conflicts with the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In slide 13 Hasan gives examples of U.S. Muslim soldiers who either attacked their fellow soldiers or defected:
- Hasan Akbar: 101st
 Airborne Division’s 326th Engineer Battalion– Through grenades killing/wounding many.
- Army Capt. James Yee– charged with espionage; later acquitted.
- Marine Cpl. Waseef Ali Hasoun; deserted in Iraq; Cited disapproval of war as a Muslim.
- Army Sergeant Abdullah William Webster; refused to deploy to Iraq based on religious beliefs

Here is what Hasan says in slide 49:
- God expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with Hell.
- Muslims may be seen as moderate (compromising) but God is not.
- “I love the Koran and being a Muslim, but I don’t want to live under Islamic rule”.
- Fighting to establish an Islamic state to please God, even by force, is condoned by Islam.
- Muslims [sic] Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly… will vary!

Nidal Hasan concludes his presentation with the following tacit warning:

Department of Defense should allow Muslim soldiers the option of being released as “Conscientious objectors” to increase troop morale AND DECREASE ADVERSE EVENTS. (Capital emphasis ours)

It is clear from this that Hasan did inform the U.S. army that any contract that he had with them would be broken since he had given them ample warning that they should not force Muslims to join them in fighting against fellow Muslims. Hasan clearly stated that this could lead to potential attacks against U.S. troops. This shows that Nidal Hasan does not meet Muslim propagandist Zawadi’s own criteria for treachery and his actions actually prove that he was being a very faithful Muslim both in warning the U.S. army and in subsequently attacking them!


Continues with Part II


No comments:

Post a Comment