History cannot be rewritten, only records can be set and broken. Gbonka Ebiri as the name reads on his Facebook account wrote complete gibberish and call it history. He started with the “assassination” of the personality of Prophet Muhammad, he muddled up half-truth and falsehood about Islam, related Islam with ISIS and Boko Haram, blackmailed the Fulanis and insulted the Yoruba race. The sad thing is a lot of people have had the article shared already. “Birds of a feather flock together”, people say.
One can easily tell Gbonka Ebiri is really furious at the fast-growing rate of Islam in the South-West, and Nigeria at large. More reason lies and half-truths have to be spread. I have carefully pointed out the 12 main points from the misleading article and refuted his claims in this article. His claims are numbered, while my responses follow.
- “Mohammed was a prophet of the sword and subjugation, a deviation from previous Prophets.“
RESPONSE: This is the same old lie that has been repeatedly told to us. They present t that: Muhammad and his companions carried Quran on one hand and sword on the other hand. Accept the Quran or have your head cut. But, having read Islamic history, the reverse is the case.
Allah, may He be exalted, says:
“And We have sent you (O Muhammad SAW) not but as a mercy for the Aalameen (mankind, jinns and all that exists)” [al-Anbiya’ 21:107].
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.” [al-Baqara 2:256].
Reading about Muhammad reveals the opposite of what critics say. He was so kind that his behaviour led many to Islam. Saying Muhammad was a deviation from other prophets means Gbonka Ebiri is ignorant of “what other prophets are”. If it is war, “other prophets” did worse.
Deuteronomy 13:6-11
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
We can see from the Bible, wars upon wars. While the word sword appeared numerous times in the Bible, none can be found in the Quran. By real definition and characteristics, Prophet Muhammad was a try prophet of God.
2. “Surah 9.29: fight those do not believe in Allah until they pay jizyah”
RESPONSE: One of the beauties of Islam is that nobody can interpret Quran with just the knowledge of the language it is read.
The verse 9:29 is a command to fight the Byzantine Romans and other hostile powers who were planning an invasion against the Muslims in Arabia. In context, it is a distinct response to aggression, in particular the assassination of one of the Prophet’s ambassadors.
Allah said:
قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not acknowledge the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they give the tribute willingly while they are humbled.
Surah At-Tawba 9:29
On the surface, this appears to be an open-ended command to fight non-Muslims until they are conquered. However, a fundamental principle of Quranic exegesis (tafseer) is that the verses must be understood in the context in which they were revealed (asbab an-nuzul) and in conjunction with other verses delineating the rules of warfare.
Ibn Kathir, At-Tabari and other commentators record that this verse was revealed concerning the expedition of Tabuk.
At-Tabari for example records:
Mujahid reported concerning the verse, “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day…” that it was revealed when Muhammad and his companions were commanded with the expedition of Tabuk.
Source: Tafseer At-Tabari 9:29
The expedition of Tabuk was preceded by the battle of Mu’tah which began when the emissary of the Prophet was assassinated while delivering a letter to a Roman ally.
Ibn Al-Qayyim writes:
The cause of the battle was that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, sent Harith ibn Umair Al-Azdi of the tribe of Lihb with his letter to Syria for the Roman king of Busra. He presented it to Sharhabeel ibn Amr Al-Ghassani and he bound him and struck his neck. Never had an ambassador of the Messenger of Allah been killed besides him. The Prophet was upset by that when news reached him and he dispatched an expedition.
Source: Zaad Al-Ma’ad 336
This was the first act of Roman aggression that further led to the expedition of Tabuk concerning which the verse 9:29 was revealed. The verse describes the aggressors as those “who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day,” because they committed this act of treachery. Executing emissaries from other countries is a war crime that could never be committed by those who sincerely believe in God.
Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
“There is no faith for one who cannot be trusted. There is no religion for one who cannot uphold a covenant.”
Source: Musnad Ahmad 11975, Grade: Hasan
Therefore, this context must be understood when reading verse 9:29 so that we clearly know who should be fought, specifically the aggressors among the Jews and Christians and not all of them. Rather, many other verses of the Quran make clear that it is unlawful to initiate hostilities against other nations.
Allah said:
“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Verily, Allah does not love transgressors.”
Surah Al-Baqarah 2:190
And Allah said:
“Fight them until there is no more persecution and worship is for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.”
Surah Al-Baqarah 2:193
Other verses and traditions make clear that Muslims must accept peace offerings from their enemies.
Allah said:
“If the enemy inclines to peace, then incline to it also and rely upon Allah. Verily, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.”
Surah Al-Anfal 8:61
And Allah said:
“So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause for fighting against them.”
Surah An-Nisa 4:90
Ali ibn Abu Talib reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
“Verily, after me there will be conflicts or affairs, so if you are able to end them in peace then do so.”
Source: Musnad Ahmad 697, Grade: Sahih
3. “He (Muhammad) had private militia and raided caravans to take the goods of merchants.”
RESPONSE: This is gross misinformation. It isn’t has portrayed. What people want us to believe is that after Prophet Muhammad emigrated to Medina, he became a warlord and launched offensive wars against the tribes around him for worldly gains. The truth is that the Meccan aristocracy had been violently intolerant of the new religion from the very beginning. Yes, the very beginning. They didn’t want to hear anything Islam. After many years of persecution, the Muslims were forced to take up arms in defense of their right to practice Islam. But not until they had migrated to Medina.
After the Prophet left Mecca for Medina following 13 years of persecution, the Quraysh issued an ultimatum to the leadership of Medina that they must kill the Prophet or face war. They wrote to Medina saying:
“You have given protection to our companion. We swear by Allah that you must fight him or exile him, or else we will come at you in full force. We will kill your fighting men and take your women.”
Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 3004, Grade:
Sahih
The people of Mecca were hellbent on seeing the downfall of Islam and its adherents. Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, one of the Prophet’s companions, went to Mecca to perform his pilgrimage at the sacred mosque. While he was there, Abu Jahl, one of the leaders of Mecca, confronted him with a glaring threat:
“I see you going around Mecca securely while you have given protection to a heretic. I imagine you are supporting and helping him. By Allah, if you were not in the company of Abu Sufyan, I would not let you safely return to your family!”
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3734, Grade: Sahih
This means if Sa’d had not been under the protection of Abu Sufyan, a powerful tribal leader, then Abu Jahl would have had his life ended that very moment.
In this context, Allah revealed a verse allowing the Muslims to defend themselves after having required them to patiently endure up to this point.
Allah said:
“Permission to fight has been given to those who are being fought because they were wronged. Verily, Allah is able to give them victory. They are those who have been evicted from their homes without right and only because they say: Our Lord is Allah.”
Surat al-Hajj 22:39
This verse makes clear that the reason the Muslims were allowed to fight was that they had been driven out and violently oppressed only because of their religion. As the Meccans were preparing for war, the Muslims prepared to launch raids on their caravans as a means to disrupt their economic war-making capabilities. What is more, the Meccans had confiscated the property that the Muslims had left behind in Mecca and were taking it to Syria to be sold for war funds.
Despite suffering this persecution, the Prophet commanded the Muslims to adhere to the highest standard of conduct and he prohibited them from plundering the enemy’s wealth.
Abdullah ibn Yazid Reported:
The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, prohibited plundering and mutilation.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 5197, Grade: Sahih
The Prophet declared that the one who plunders, robs, and loots people is not a true Muslim.
Imran ibn Hussein reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
“Whoever plunders the wealth of others is not one of us.”
Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1123, Grade: Sahih
In another narration, the Prophet said:
“Whoever is notorious for plunder is not one of us.”
Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 4391, Grade: Sahih
On one occasion, the Prophet saw that some of his companions had looted the enemy’s sheep. He commanded them to return the property to their owners.
Tha’labah ibn Hakam reported: We came across some sheep of the enemy, so we plundered them and set up our cooking pots. The Prophet passed by and ordered that they be overturned. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
“Verily, plunder is unlawful.|
Source: Sunan Ibn Mājah 3938, Grade: Sahih
As mentioned in the verse, permission was given to fight back only as a response to aggression. Muslims are allowed to fight for the right to practice Islam and to defend innocent people from oppression. No other motives are permissible, especially not to fight for worldly gains and spoils.
Abu Huraira reported: A man said, “O Messenger of Allah, a man intends to fight for the sake of Allah and he is seeking worldly gains.” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
“There is no reward for him.”
The people found that very difficult and they said, “Return to the Messenger of Allah, for perhaps he did not understand you.” The man returned and he said, “O Messenger of Allah, a man intends to fight for the sake of Allah and he is seeking worldly gain.” The Prophet said:
“There is no reward for him.”
Then he returned a third time and the Prophet said:
“There is no reward for him.”
Source: Musnad Aḥmad 7840, Grade: Sahih
Nevertheless, the collection of spoils is an incidental consequence of war. The Prophet would collect the spoils and distribute them equitably among the community as charity. Moreover, the Prophet forbade Muslims from killing non-combatants and civilians, and he commanded them to behave magnanimously with the enemy.
Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said to his army:
Go forward in the name of Allah, with Allah, and upon the religion of the Messenger of Allah. Do not kill the elderly, children, young people, or women. Do not steal from the spoils but collect them, and behave righteously and in the best manner. Verily, Allah loves those who behave in the best way.
Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 2608, Grade: Hasan
To conclude, the Prophet launched raids against the Meccan caravans in response to their declaration of war. The raids were meant to obstruct the Meccan’s plans to attack the new community in Medina. Even so, the Prophet prohibited his companions from stealing from the enemy and he told his army to behave honorably with them.
4. “Every city they raided, they killed men, raped women and sold the children into slavery.”
RESPONSE: These are lies from the pit of hell. All the wars fought were all defensive wars. Meanwhile, there were rules guiding these wars.
1. Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person. (Sunan Abu Dawud)
2. Do not practice treachery or mutilation. (Al-Muwatta)
3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees. (Al-Muwatta)
4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food. (Al-Muwatta)
5. If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam. (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)
6. Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)
7. Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle. (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)
8. Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience. (Sahih Muslim)
9. No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire. (Sunan Abu Dawud).
10. Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil. (Al-Tirmidhi)
But reverse is the case when we look into the Bible. Children were killed, women were killed, virgins were seized. Even livestock were not spared.
Ezekiel 9:6-7
Kill them all—old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with corpses. Go!” So they went and began killing throughout the city.
Deuteronomy 13:15
you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock.
Deuteronomy 20:16
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
Numbers 31:17-18
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, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
So, if we are to be sincere to choose which is better, which would you pick, Islam or Christianity?
5. “He saw nothing wrong with sex with a minor.”
RESPONSE: This is just a false accusation without proof. If the Gbonka is referring to the marriage of Aisha, it has been proven so many times. Judging the standard of life about a thousand years ago with this present one is a waste of intelligence. Aisha wasn’t a child when the marriage was consummated. She was matured for marriage. The use of minor for a marriageable girl is wrong. As life expectancy changes with generation, so also the puberty.
In Islam, girls are encouraged to marry at early age to avoid temptations. Meanwhile, nobody is forced to marry in Islam.
6. “Mohammed had zero tolerance to any opposition.”
RESPONSE: This I find very strange. This is not true. Islam teaches tolerance on all levels: individual, groups, and states.
Tolerance is the structure that upholds human rights, cultural diversity and the rule of law. Allah says in the Holy Quran very clearly:
“To every People have We appointed rites and ceremonies which they must follow, let them not then dispute with you on the matter, but do invite (them) to your Lord: for you are assuredly on the Right Way. If they do wrangle with you, say, ‘God knows best what it is you are doing. “God will judge between you on the Day of Judgment concerning the matters in which you differ.‘” (Quran, Al-Hajj: 76-69).
So, we see that the verses mentioned above give prohibition not to suppress people, present the message to them in a decent and clear way, invite them to the truth and do your best in presenting and conveying the message of Allah to humanity, while it is totally up to them to accept or to reject it. We can’t simply impose anything on them.
Islam may tolerate anything but it teaches zero tolerance for injustice, oppression, and violation of the rights of other human beings. Allah says in Holy Quran: “And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors, and raise for us from your side one who will protect, and raise for us from your side one who will help.”
From the life of our beloved Prophet (SAW, we can learn many lessons of tolerance as He (SAW) did with all mankind whether its believer or non-believer. The whole personality of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) demonstrates the implication of tolerance towards other minorities. Once the people asked Prophet Muhammad (SAW) that why Allah did not command hardships and forcefully flatten the false Gods to prove one true religion. Upon this Allah Almighty sent the following verse of Quran:
“And those who associate others with Allah say, “If Allah had willed, we would not have worshipped anything other than Him, neither we nor our fathers nor would we have forbidden anything through other than Him.” Thus did those do before them. So is thereupon the messengers except [the duty of] clear notification?” (Quran, 16:35)
Once when the Prophet (SAW) was asked, “What is Eemaan (belief/faith)?” He (SAW) replied: “Eemaan (faith) is patience and tolerance.”
In another place, ALLAH says;
“You shall resort to pardon, advocate tolerance, and disregard the ignorant.” Al-Quran 7:199
#7. “Asma bint Marwa, Abu Afak were killed.”
RESPONSE: Internet has been abused. People now jump on information and begin to spread it, not minding the full version of it. We have always been told by critics that Asma Bint Marwa and Abu Afak were killed because they oppose the prophet. Were they the only people who were obviously against the prophet? What happened to the Meccan people when the city was conquered? Were the inhabitants killed for being an opposition to the message of Islam?
Sources proved these two (Asma and Abu Afak) were not just oppositions but they were instigating people against the prophet and Islam. Mocking of God’s prophets has grave consequences. An example is given in the Bible. The result had 42 children eaten by bears. 2 Kings 2:23–24 tells of the prophet Elisha calling a curse down upon a group of “children” (KJV), “youths” (NIV), “boys,” (NRSV/ESV), or “lads” (NASB), resulting in two bears (she-bears, if you must) mauling forty-two of them. Here’s the passage:
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.”
This is definitely worse than the case of Asma and Afak, here these children only mocked Elisha by calling him bald head, that he took as offense and curse them. And voilà, bears appeared and feasted on 42 of them.
But will these critics read this part from the Bible?
#8. “While older religious advocated for love and forgiveness, Mohammed sought revenge in violent ways when he felt betrayed.(e.g Banu Qurayza)”
Response: This is a lie. Love and forgiveness are also the core messages of Islam.
And Allah said:
“Show forgiveness, enjoin what is good, and turn away from the ignorant.”
Surat Al-A’raf 7:199
Abu Abdullah Al-Khadali reported: I asked Aisha about the character of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. Aisha said:
“The Prophet was not indecent, he was not obscene, he would not shout in the markets, and he would not respond to an evil deed with an evil deed, but rather he would pardon and overlook.”
Source: Sunan At-Tirmidhi 2016, Grade: Sahih
As for the example of the Banu Qurayza cited,
One of the vilest and unfounded claims levied against Prophet Muhammad (saw) is that he ordered the execution of Jews. While the accusations cite different alleged reasons, each is completely without merit in history or in fact. So, what really happened?
Some historians suggest the possibility that somewhere between 600 and 900 Jews were executed shortly after the Battle of the Ditch. This event is suggested in several references, including the Sahi Hadeeth, or authentic traditions of Prophet Muhammad. Some sources, such as Jewish sources, fail to record the event altogether. However, the writings of Ibn Ishaq bring much dispute to the event. Ibn Ishaq lived from 704 to 761 (some sources say 767), and is largely credited for writing the first biography of the Prophet Muhammad.
On the other hand, countless hadeeth reporting the event in question offer an undisputed and authentic line of narration and recording traceable to the very day in question.
Who were these Jews and for what crime were they killed? Who killed them? If Muhammad himself didn’t kill them, why did he not stop their execution?
The Banu Qurayza, the tribe Prophet Muhammad allegedly massacred, lived at a 6 hour walking distance outside the city of Medina. Medina was not a large city. If the intent was to put to death nearly a thousand people, why do so in the middle of town? Medina had neither the capacity to bury so many corpses nor the infrastructure to keep captive so many people. Why migrate an entire tribe into town, only to kill them and transport their corpses back out of town?
There was a battle called “The Battle of the Ditch”. The battle was a viciously lopsided battle, in which an army of nearly 20,000 attacked the Muslim army of roughly 1200. Salman Farsi, a Persian companion of the Prophet Muhammad suggested that the Muslims build a ditch along the most exposed side of Medina to ward off attackers, hence the name of the battle.
While natural barriers protected Medina from the sides, the rear was still exposed. To remedy this situation, Prophet Muhammad entered a treaty of alliance with the Banu Qurayza to guard the back of the city. However, once the battle commenced, the Banu Qurayzah secretly sided with the enemy army. Essentially, the Muslims were now responsible for two fronts with an army less than 1/15th the size of their opponents. The Holy Qur’an makes reference to this event in Chapter 33:11-14.
With God’s grace, the Muslim army still prevailed victorious, despite the overwhelming odds and despite Banu Qurayza’s treason. However, due to their open treason, justice demanded they be held accountable. When asked of their actions, the Banu Qurayzah showed no signs of remorse, nor did they ask for clemency, and instead engaged the Muslims in battle.
Soon the Banu Qurayza stopped fighting and asked for negotiations. It is of note that this was the second time the Banu Qurayza broke a pact with the Muslims. Upon their first act of treason years earlier, Prophet Muhammad exiled them from Medina as their punishment. Eventually, he allowed them to return. As further evidence, a Jewish leader named Amr bin Ma’di rebuked his people for going back on their word. He showed remorse for his actions of treason, asked forgiveness, and was released. The Prophet, upon learning Amr bin Ma’di had been released, decisively approved. This again demonstrates that the Jews knew they had committed an illegal act and that the Prophet Muhammad was ready to forgive those who merely acknowledged their error and asked to be forgiven.
Ibn Kumar reported:
“The Jews of Banu Nadeer and Banu Quraiza waged war against the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, so he expelled Banu Nadeer but he allowed Banu Quraiza to stay and he granted them favor until they also waged war after that.”
Source: Sahih Muslim 1766, Grade: Sahih
After the battle, the Prophet chose Sa’d ibn Mu’adh to pass judgment upon the fighting men, which Sa’d did according to the law of the Torah.
Sa’d judged only that “their fighting men” should be executed as an act of self-defense for the Muslim community. The women and children were taken into custody due to the fact that they would have no one to care for them; to abandon them would have itself been a death sentence. This ruling was based upon the Torah, the Jewish holy book, which reads:
“But if the city makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.”
Source: Deuteronomy 20:12-14
This judgment might seem very harsh and unmerciful, but in the context of ancient Arabia this action was necessary for the Muslim community due to the threat of extermination they faced.
Scholars of history understand that such was the nature of justice in a rough desert environment:
“Most scholars of this episode agree that neither party acted outside the bounds of normal relations in 7th century Arabia. The new order brought by Muhammad was viewed by many as a threat to the age-old system of tribal alliances, as it certainly proved to be. For the Banu Qurayza, the end of this system seemed to bring with it many risks. At the same time, the Muslims faced the threat of total extermination and needed to send a message to all those groups in Medina that might try to betray their society in the future. It is doubtful that either party could have behaved differently under the circumstances.”
Source: PBS “Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet.”
Furthermore, as only the fighting men were killed, there were several male members of the Banu Quraiza tribe who survived because they did not participate in the battle, either because they were too young or they surrendered before the fighting began.
Ibn Umar reported:
Thus, the Prophet killed their fighting men and he distributed their women, children, and property among the Muslims except for some of them who had joined the Messenger of Allah and so he granted them protection and they embraced Islam.
Many of the male descendants of Quraiza lived, some of them embracing Islam, which is proof that the Prophet did not commit genocide (extermination of an entire race), but rather he only approved the execution of their combatants as an act of self-defense.
This fact is confirmed by Dr. Marco Schöller:
“The Islamic tradition knows a number of descendants from the Qurayẓa by name, most famous among them being the traditionist Muḥammad b. Kaʿb al-Quraẓī, who was born a Muslim and died in Medina in 120/738 or some years before. Others include his father Kaʿb ibn Asad ibn Sulaym and his brother Isḥāq, as well as ʿAṭiyya al-Quraẓī, al-Zubayr ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Zabīr, ʿAlī ibn Rifāʿa and the progeny of Abū Malik al-Quraẓī. This suggests that… several male persons of the Qurayẓa did survive the conflict in Medina, probably because of their young age at the time.”
Source: Schöller, Marco. “Qurayẓa (Banū al-).” Encyclopedia of the Qurʾān.
In addition, even though the Muslims suffered this bitter conflict with the Jewish tribes of Medina, this did not diminish the Prophet’s teachings of kindness and good character toward Jewish neighbors. In fact, the Prophet died will in the middle of a business contract with a Jew.
Aisha reported:
“The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, passed away while his armor was mortgaged to a Jew for thirty units of barley.”
Source: Sahih Bukhari 2759, Grade: Sahih
This tradition is proof that the Prophet continued to maintain friendly relations with Jews even after the incident with Qurayza and until his death. Likewise, the Prophet’s companions continued this tradition of amicability after him.
Mujahid reported: I was with Abdullah ibn Amr while his servant was skinning a sheep. He said, “O boy, when you finish up, then start with the Jewish neighbor.” A man there exclaimed, “Jewish? May Allah correct you!” He replied:
“I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, recommending that we treat our neighbors well until we thought that he would order us to make them our heirs.”
Source: Source: Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 128, Grade: Hasan
In conclusion, the Prophet did not commit genocide against the Jews of Medina, nor did he intend for bad relations between Jews and Muslims in general. The conflict with the Banu Qurayza tribe was only due to the specific aggression suffered by the Muslims and not merely because they were Jews. The Prophet continued to maintain friendly relations with Jews even after this bitter conflict and this tradition was continued by his companions.
So there is no need to make a mountain out of a mole. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him wasn’t the “bad guy” critics want us to believe. If we check the Bible, worst cases are always found.
2 kings 19:35
That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning–there were all the dead bodies!
Is this also love and forgiveness?
9. “Their teachings are motivations for ISIS and Boko Haram”
RESPONSE: This is a big lie. Islam is guided with dos and don’ts. Shouting Allahu Akbar doesn’t make one a Muslim. Terrorists don’t kill for religion, it is for something else. Locally, Boko Haram has been terrorizing the North East for years. What exactly they are fighting for is not in any way for the generality and benefit of all Muslims. Muslim have been directly injured, killed and displaced from their homes. Bombs sound in mosques, motor parks and markets. They don’t select their victims before bombing parks and markets, how can they be Muslims and be killing Muslims?
In Islam, the logic of giving your left cheek for another slap when the right is hit doesn’t work. There are cases self-defense becomes necessary, but killing innocent souls is totally not right. And no compulsion in religion, nobody can be forced to be Muslims, not even with arms.
Meanwhile, the media has been selective and bias in their definition of “terrorists”. Gaza for years is bloody. Palestine is not safe, yet, they are not “terrorized.”
But with attacks in Egypt, London and Syria, critics default to blaming the Quran, citing its allegedly “violent” verses. We cannot resolve the Syrian, Yemeni and Somalia atrocities until we adhere to justice. Blaming the Quran for terrorism is not only demonstrably false, it wastes precious resources that could be spent on stopping war and famine.
10. “Surah 4.24, a reason for Fulani infamous raiding, violate women and sell people as slaves.”
RESPONSE: Firstly, I don’t know why we don’t enjoy the peace Allah has given us. We like to find trouble where there is none. That was how people erroneously claimed it was Fulani people who came to rob in my neighborhood some months back, at last, it was revealed they were not. Fulanis are now the new songs on the lips of bigots. Every tribe in Nigeria has good and bad ones, generalizing crime is not the best. It creates unnecessary hatred.
Justifying the raiding and capturing of women by some fools with Quran is to say the least madness. The verse quoted (surah 4.24) is totally unparalleled with the atrocities.
One has to read all the adjoining verses in conjunction. Verses 4:23 to 4:25 are about women that a man is forbidden to MARRY. Verse 4:24 is about married slave women who had been captured at the battlefield itself and whose previous marriages were made null and void because they were unable to go back or had converted to Islam in captivity and didn’t want to go back to their non-Muslim husbands. Muslim women suffered the same fate when they were captured by the enemies. That is why Quran hints at this and says that Muslim should not grieve over what they have lost. If there was a treaty, the prisoners of war were always exchanged. It is only when there was none, that prisoners of war were taken as slaves. Even so, one month had to pass before a slave woman could marry another man, allowing sufficient time for her family to seek her freedom if they wanted to. These women were either freed, released on payment of ransom, or exchanged with other Muslim prisoners held by the enemy. Here, Quran is allowing a Muslim man to MARRY from among these women. Verse 4:25 clearly explains this and creates an additional condition that besides the consent of the woman, the consent of her master/guardian should also be obtained. The master/guardian was not always the person who slept with her. This is clearly exemplified in this Hadith: “There are three people for whom there is a double reward; a person belonging to the Ahl al-Kitab who believes in his own prophet and believes in Muhammad, and the slave owned by another when he performs his obligations towards Allah and his obligations towards his master, and the man who has a slave girl with him, that he teaches her good manners and instructs her well in polite accomplishment, and he educates her and gives her a good education, then he sets her free and marries her off.” This tradition is repeated in Bukhari at least six times.
See also Verse 4:19, which says:
“O you who believe! it is not lawful for you that you should take women as heritage against (their) will, and do not straiten them in order that you may take part of what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest indecency, and treat them kindly; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it.”
There was no sexual exploitation, as critics of Islam claim. And we can’t blame the atrocities of some fools on Islam.
11. “Fulani disrupted the foundation of Yoruba Nation States after capturing Ilorin.”
RESPONSE: The old Oyo empire wasn’t as peaceful as you thought. There was coercion and forceful control of the surroundings. Alaafin of Oyo then was using Afonja to attack various places. Apomu a town that forms parts of territories of Ile-Ife, for example, was sacked by Afonja and his army on the order of the then Alaafin. The same Afonja rebelled against the Alaafin before finally settling down in Ilorin.
History shows the coming of the Europeans destabilized the main empires of Yoruba land and Nigeria at large. History also reveals that the Transatlantic Slave Trade began in the late 15 century in Nigeria. But the invasion of Ilorin by the Fulani which was in allegiance with Afonja was in the early 19th century. This means slave trade predated the coming of Islam to Yoruba land. So linking the slave trade with the coming of Islam is a rape on our historical data.
12. “How exactly does anyone of Yoruba ancestry get convinced that the teachings and lifestyle of Muhammad should gain more respect than that of his more respect than that of this ancestors?”
Response: The answer is not far fetched, Islam remains the only true religion left on earth. And as time goes by, people troop into the religion through logical debates and scriptural evidence.
The lifestyle of Muhammad peace be upon him is worthy of emulation.
We have found out that Islam is not the religion of coercion (Ìmàle) but that of light (ìmólẹ̀). We have found out that the idea of Muhammad and Islam forcing people to become Muslims are as false as the stories of Tortoise and animals in their kingdoms. And when we compare Islam to the practices of the so-called ancestors of the Yoruba race, we realized that Islam is better and safer. At least no human for sacrifice. No stopping of women from moving because of “oro” and other barbaric cultural practices.
Thank you
