By Debi Brand
Khalid Masood, no Muslim, mere Muslim, or one among “those who believe”?
Chapter Three
The Islam of “the Inhabitants of Al-Medeenah”
(The practice of the Medinians [‘amal ahl al-Madinah] [1Kalami, P. 103.])
“a Bai’ah means pledging loyalty and obedience to a Khaleefah, who in turn must then rule based on that which Allah has revealed.”
“The main implication of the Bai’ah is that the Khaleefah and his people pledge to follow the laws of Islam in their entirety.”
Welcome to Al-Medina! First city to showcase the embodiment of Islam.
Yes, indeed, “Madinah al-Nabiy” [City of the Prophet]. In the words of Dr. As-Sallaabee, the city “chosen as the starting point of Islam and the Capital city of the Muslim Nation” — a nation, mind you, “not limited by geographical boundaries.” A nation that encompasses only that which belongs to “Allah.” Moreover, a nation, wherein “the law of the land is Shar’iah — (i.e., all laws of Allah as legislated in the Qur’an or through the Sunnah of the Prophet) — of Allah.”
(Hamidullah, Dr. Muhammad, The Battlefields of the Prophet Muhammad, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, Revised, 1992, Publishers, LTD, 2009; ISBN 81-7151-153-8; P. 47; As-Sallaabee, The Noble Life of the Prophet, P.P. 630, 797, 793, respectively.)
The nation in which, as spoken to in chapter one and two of this work, the alleged Prophet, Muhammad, was, allegedly, the “Allah-appointed” leader and commander in chief. As imam Doi relates, “The Prophet was the greatest Politician,” and “his little Commonwealth of Islam,” with al-Madina as its capital city, “functioned on the principles of Shariah.” (Doi, P. 423.)
“One vast homogeneous commonwealth of people,” with one chief “common goal and a common destiny … guided by a common ideology in all matters both spiritual and temporal,” as we read in the following from Imam Doi.
Imam Abdur Rahman I. Doi, numerous times herein cited, Professor and Former Instructor at the Center of Islamic Legal Studies and Faculty of Law, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria; in his work, herein often-cited from, “Shariah: The Islamic Law,” he provides this terse affirmation on the place of shariah in the life of those in the ummah of Muhammad. So too, on the concept of the Ummah as a nation, “the nation of Islam,”—“ The Islamic State”:
In the Shari’ah… there is an explicit emphasis on the fact that Allah is the Lawgiver and the whole Ummah, the nation of Islam, is merely His trustee…. The Islamic State, like the whole of what one might call Islamic political psychology, views the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) as one vast homogeneous commonwealth of people who have a common goal and a common destiny and who are guided by a common ideology in all matters both spiritual and temporal. The entire Muslim Ummah lives under the Shari’ah to which every member has to submit, with sovereignty belong [sic] to Allah alone. (Doi, Preface, P. 5, in that order)
Once more, that “sovereignty belong [sic] to Allah alone” inveterate Islamic precept governing the Ummah was solid before the of late reestablishment of “Islamic State”; it remains so now, post the now alleged annihilation of “IS.”
“So-called Muslims,” claiming you are against Shariah?
If you are against Shariah, your authoritative texts — herein and elsewhere — show you then to be against the “common goal” of the ummah. For that reason, your skilled scholars and teachers, such as Doi and others like him — as those he often cites: Al-Tabarani, Daraqutni, Hamidullah, As-Suyuti, “Shaykh al-Islam, Ibn Taimiyyah,” Ibn Zayd A-Qayrawani, ibn Kathir, just to name a few — affirm as much. If you are against Shariah, you are against what your “sacred texts” affirm is to be the yearned for, thus, the pursued, hard fought for “common destiny” of the believers within the Muslim nation, which is to live under Shariah. Live “with sovereignty belong [sic] to Allah alone.” You are therein shown, if against Shariah, you are against the “common ideology in all matters both spiritual and temporal” that guide the Ummah of Muhammad. If you are indeed against all that, dear Friend, leave that ummah. You do not belong therein.
“So-called Muslims,” you claim you are against Shariah?
You are one or the other: bold-faced liars concerning precepts you hold dear; or you are an apostate to Islam, rejecting the judgement and verdict and practice of your alleged beloved prophet. If you are the latter, I summons you to leave the fold of Islam…I urge you, leave behind you the practices of Al-Madina …
Al-Madina–City of the man who, allegedly declared, “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people till they testify that La ilaha illallah wa anna Muhammad-ar-Rasul-Allah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah), and perform As-Salat [Iqamat-as-salat] (prayers)….” And for those who so complied, thus doing, that and more, as Islam calls for, “then they save their lives and properties from me,” declared the alleged prophet, “except for the Islamic laws, and their reckoning (accounts) will be with (done by) Allah.”
(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Translated by: Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1997, Vol. 1, Book of Belief, P.. 66, # 25.)
And for such reasons, as “Thawban narrated,” with confidence “the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Indeed Allah gathered the earth for me so that I saw its east and its west. And surely my Ummah’s authority shall reach over all that was shown to me of it.’ (Sahih)” (See below.)
Therefore, concerning the above hadith, the followers and scholars relate, “The Hadith is explicit on the point that there shall come a time when Muslims will rule over the entire world, since the entire earth was shown gathered up for the Prophet.”
(Jami At-Tirmidhi, Compiled by: Imam Hafiz Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad Ibn ‘Eisa At-Tirmidhi, Translated by: Abu Khaliyl (USA), Ahadith edited and referenced by” Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, Final Review by: Islamic Research Section, Darussalam, First Edition, 2007. Vol. 4, Chapters on Al-Fitan, P.P. 234, 235, # 2176, Foot Note Comments, respectively.)
Therefore, a city with this note among history’s pages belonging to it: “When the apostle was firmly settled in Medina and his brethren the emigrants were gathered to him and the affairs of the helpers [Ansar] were arranged Islam became firmly established.”
(Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad ibn Yasar, The Life of Muhammad, Sirat Rasul Allah, Translated by A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan, 1955/1967/2006; ISBN 13: 978-0-19-636033-1; ISBN- 10: 0- 19- 636033-1, Twentieth Impression, 2006. P. 235.)
And central to the acknowledgement of Islam being firmly established therein, “The Prayer was instituted.” (Ibid.)
The prayer being instituted carried within itself, the message that, here, “Allah” was acknowledged as the greatest. Here, it was acknowledged, that that “Allah” had appointed as his final messenger to all mankind, his alleged messenger, Muhammad. And as such, here, in the city showcasing Islam enacted, that messenger was to be obeyed, his ways followed.
Therefore, when the Prayer was established, along with that, “the alms tax and fasting were prescribed, legal punishments fixed, the forbidden and the permitted prescribed, and Islam took up its abode with them,” the inhabitants of Al-Medinah. (Ibid.)
Therefore, at each determined salat [prayer] time, the call to prayer was heard: “ ‘Allah is the Greatest, Allah is Greatest.’” (Sallaabee] P. 748.) Therewith making it clear, as touched on above, in this city, it is acknowledged, “Allah” — the god of the alleged prophet of Islam, thus the god of the followers of that alleged prophet– he is greater than all others deities worshipped.
In that open call to prayer, it is therein and thereby declared, here, where this call is heard, it is acknowledged, “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.” (Ibid.) It is therein and thereby acknowledged, here, where that call is heard, we “bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,” and that declaration means, “Allah appointed him as the leader of the Muslim nation.” (Ibid.)
Moreover, therefore, here in this nation, here in this capital city of this nation, with this open broadcasted call to pray, we acknowledge, in this land—that of “Allah, his messenger, and the believers”—that messenger’s “Sunnah must be applied.” “He must be followed and obeyed.” (Ibid.)
For no trite reason, the Qur’an declares, “Allah” commanded his alleged Messenger, Muhammad, “Say [to them, O Muhammad], ‘If you love Allah, then follow me and Allah will love you [and reward you] and forgive you for your wrong actions.’” (Surat Al-Imran: 31, al-Jalalyan)
To that end, “The earth,” provides Qur’an, “belongs to Allah.” (Al-Araf: 128.) And “{supremacy belongs to Allaah, his messenger, and the believers} [Al Munaafiqoon/8].” (Ibn Qayyim, P.6, as verse is rendered thereat.)
Therefore, as Islam’s power and rule expanded, the inhabitants of this city witnessed, if not participated with, their alleged prophet, marching out of Medina, aiming to further expand the rule of his governing system. His “religion,” for countless, proving irresistible. As we witness in the conversion to Islam of “the Bedouin” captured by Abbad b. Bishr, sent out to scout the situation of the Jews of Khaybar. That short telling of that conversion is this: believing the man was a spy of the said Jews, “‘Umar al-Khattab said, “Cut off his head.”’” To which Abbad retorted, “‘I promised him protection.’” Thereupon, states the narrative, the alleged “Messenger of God” stepped in, commanded Abbad to keep the man with him, “‘tie him up.’”
(Al-Waqidi, Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad b. ‘Umar, The Life of Muhammad, Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, Translated by Rizwi Faizer, Amal Ismail, and AbdulKader Tayob, Routledge Studies in Classical Islam, New York, NY, 1st Publication, 2011; ISBN: 978-0-415-57434-1 [hbk], ISBN: 978-0-203-84458-8 [ebk]; P. 315 -316.)
Thus, Abbad did as commanded to. And the record relates, “When the Messenger of God entered Khaybar, he proposed Islam to him [the Bedouin]. The Messenger of God said, ‘Indeed, I invite you,’ three times. ‘If you do not convert, he [Abbad] will not take off the rope from your neck except to up – hang.’” And lo and behold, thereupon, states the record, “The Bedouin converted.” (Ibid.)
Yes, indeed, love is a most powerful force.
Of it, I am reminded of the greatest Love ever shown. As that of which Jesus the Christ spoke of, in part, with this declaration: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (Gospel of John, Chapter 15: 13.)
And that act, Jesus The Christ did for me. Did for you… and I am forever gripped by that love, and to the best of my ability to be so, governed by the same.
As stated, for countless, as we will speak to more broadly on in posts to come, Islam proved simply irresistible …
Moreover, history notes, the practice of the alleged “apostle” was, “When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked.” (Ibn Ishaq, P. 511, and others.)
Hence the history provided example of Khaybar: “We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle past the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him…” (Ibid.) Therefore, the story the Muslim told is this: “We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, ‘Muhammad with his force,’ and turned tail and fled.” Thereupon, states the narrative, “The apostle said, ‘Allah akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people’s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.’” (Ibid.)
Al-Bukhari, states it this way: “‘Whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.’”
(Al-Bukhari, [Vol. 1] , The Book of Adhan [the Call to Prayer], p. 358, # 610.)
Warned? Warned of what? Warned when and where?
Try in al-Medina: warned upon the arrival of the alleged prophet of Islam, the Qur’an itself singling out the Jews of Medina. At that place in time, allegedly, “Allah” in alleged revelations, speaking directly to them. Prodded, “Believe in what I have sent down [(The Qur’an)], confirming what is with you [(the Torah and what it says regarding tawhid and prophethood[sic])].” Warning them, “Do not be the first [of the People of the Book] to disbelieve in it.” (Surat al-Baqara: 41, Al-Jalalayn.)
Further warning them, as touched on in other post in this work, on the heels of the Victory at Badr. Post that, warning them with the siege and then the banishment from their townships of the Banu Qaynuqa. Warned them with the brutal murder of one of their leaders, Kab ibn al-Ashraf. Warned the Jews of the Banu Nadir, then residing in Khaybar, in their own siege and expulsion from their homes in Medina. Bringing that expulsion to fruition, as we speak more on herein, by casting terror in their hearts. Terror cast there via the weapons of leaping vicious flames and life threating swirling smoke. In every instance therein, warned them against opposing “Allah” and his alleged messenger.
Therefore, as the record states, when the alleged prophet and his army heard no call to prayer in Khaybar, evil was that morning. As ibn Kathir relates the evilness of that morning, “When the Messenger of God …. did not hear the call to prayer …. He mounted up and we all did so along with him.” And as the Muslims proceeding down into Khaybar, meeting the “Khaybar labourers [sic] leaving the village with hoes and baskets. … the Messenger of God (SAAS) said, ‘Allahu Akbar! God is most Great! Khaybar is ruined! It’s a bad day for an enemy we have warned when we can dismount in their open square!’”
(Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya, Vol. III, Translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Reviewed by Dr. Muneer Fareed, Garnet Publishing, UK, The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, Lebanon, 2000, Reprinted 2005,2010, ISBN—13: 978-1-85964-144-6, ISBN-10: 1-85964-144-X; P. 249.)
Indeed it is, nonetheless, such was sunnah of the believers.
Moreover, therefore, soon would be strolling through the streets of Medina, the “lions of Islam,” their latest seized prey on mounts, in arm, in hand, in mouth, as the word, the chatter, the news, arrived, spread through the town like wild fire, “Khaybar became the prey of the Muslims.” (Ibn Ishaq, P.516.)
“They (the people of Khaybar) took various paths in flight. And the Prophet (SAAS) killed their warriors and took their families prisoners.” (Ibn Kathir, al-Nabawiyya, P. 250.) “One by one,” seized the forts and property thereof. (Ishaq, P. 512.)
Such would be the stories, the lessons, this capital city of the Muslim nation would provide for believers for all times.
Because, as stated, this was Al-Madina–first city to show-case the embodiment of Islam. The city to provide a pattern for all Muslims in all times for which to yearn, to practice, to reproduce in their own generation, in their respective cities or country-sides, where or whenever they reside.
In the early days of the development of the governing system known as Islam, in Medina, in the wake of the death of the alleged founder of that nation, Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq, as mentioned in chapter’s one and two of this work, became “The Khaleefah of the Messenger of Allah.” And as such, history relates, as Dr. Sallaabee writes; showcasing, for all Muslims in all times, Islam in practice, “The inhabitants of Al-Madeenah pledged allegiance to him [Abu Bakr].” (Sallaabee, Biography of Abu Bakr, P.P. 236, 250, in that order.)
For Muslims living outside the capital city, it was for the citizens of the then young Muslim nation, as it is for citizens of that nation today: “those who live in various provinces and cities,” writes Sallaabee, they made their respective pledges to their respective [Islamic] representative, Imam, “governors , leaders, tribal [local] chieftains,” etc. Now, with expansion of that nation, given, citizens of the Muslim nation now reside in all countries, we can add to the above, those who live in various countries. (Ibid, P.P. 249, 250, in order.)
The Islamic tenet of pledging one’s allegiance to the overall leader of the Muslim nation goes back to the alleged founder of the religio-polity entity, the alleged prophet himself. As ibn Ishaq relates, Ka ‘b b. Malik said, “The first man to touch the hand of the Messenger of God (SAAS) was Al-Bara’ b Ma ‘rur. Then all the rest of us pledged allegiance to him.”
(Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya, Vol. II, Translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Reviewed by Dr. Muneer Fareed, Garnet Publishing, The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, UK, 1998, Reprinted 2002,2004,2006, Lebanon; ISBN —13: 978-1-85964-143-9, ISBN-10: 1-85964-143–1; P. 136.)
All familiar with Islam know, that pledge is known as the first pledge of Aqaba, so named after the valley in which it was rendered.
Moreover, because of the agreement of Aqaba–which, for those unfamiliar with that, we will read more of herein in time—in that pledge, this alleged “Messenger of God” clearly understood, that agreement came with the power of enforcement of his “religion,” and enforcement of it, when need be, by use of the unsheathed sword.
Therefore, following that sunnah established by the alleged founder of Islam himself, the Medinaians rendered their respective pledge.
With respect to that sunnah, speaking with the authority of the exemplariness Medina of old provided, Sallaabee provides, “Making a direct pledge to the Khaleefah is only obligatory upon leaders in society and the people of knowledge and wisdom.” “As for all other people,” for them, “it is sufficient for them to enter into the pledges of their [Islamic] governors, leaders, tribal [local] chieftains, or representatives….” (Ibid, P. 250.)
He goes on to state, in speaking to the “pledge” above mentioned, “Bai’ah, in this specific sense of the word (in the sense of the Bai’ah that was given to Abu Bakr), should be given only to the overall ruler of the Muslim nation.” (Ibid.) Though given to a local leader, it is, in all instances, through that local leader, allegiance rendered, as stated, to “the overall ruler of the Muslim nation.” (Ibid.)
Then he stresses the point, that pledge of allegiance “should not be given to anyone else, regardless of whether a Muslim country exists on earth or not.” (Ibid.) Sallaabee states, “such pledges should not be made [to others] because of the difficult implications and obligations that result from a pledge of allegiance.” (Ibid.) As in the obligations that exclusively, according to Islamic doctrine, come under the purview of the right of “Allah,” as spoken to in chapter two of this work.
Sallaabee then clearly provides just why each Muslim must render his/her respective pledge of allegiance only to “the overall ruler of the Muslim nation” and to none else. Does so stating, because, “in short … a Bai’ah” the Muslim is rendering, is, on their part, “pledging loyalty and obedience to a Khaleefah, who,” as that spoken to in previous chapters of this work, will obey “Allah,” and therefore, “in turn must then rule based on that which Allah has revealed.” Just as “Allah” in his book commands him to do. (Ibid.)
Moreover, provides Sallaabee, “In essence, a Bai’ah is a contractual agreement between two parties: the Khaleefah and the citizens of the Muslim nation.” And “when they make their agreement,” it is by no means for that leader to lead by whims or by the laws of whatever non-Muslim country that he may live in. No sir, at the heart of that contractual agreement is “The Qur’an and Sunnah.” (Ibid.)
Therefore, in that unique to Islam contractual swearing of allegiance, both parties involved are in fact therein swearing to live guided only by that in the Qur’an and Sunnah. And as borne out in chapter two of this work, this act is a basic tenet of Islam.
What’s more, as spoken to in previous chapters of this work, that pledge is only due to one who he himself pledges to only rule by what “Allah has sent down.” Only judge by what has been, allegedly, revealed and thus borne out in the Qur’an and Sunnah of “Allah’s Messenger.” As Sallaabee provides, when the two parties make this agreement, on the one side, “The Khaleefah pledges to base his rule on the Qur’an and Sunnah and to submit completely to Islamic law—in terms of beliefs, legislations, and an overall way of life.” That is his oath rendered in the said contractual agreement. (Ibid.)
On the other side, the side of the citizenries,’ “For their part,” writes Sallaabee, as long as the Khaleefah remains true to his above-noted oath — “ rule [by] the Qur’an and Sunnah …submit completely to Islamic law—in … beliefs, legislations and … overall way of life” — then, “the citizens of the Muslim nation pledge to submit to and obey their Khaleefah.” Do so, as touched on, “as long as their obedience remains within the bounds of the teachings of Islam.” (Ibid, P. 251.)
Because, for all citizens of the Nation of Muhammad, irrespective of where or when they live, “Allah and His Messenger” only allow them “to submit to and obey” tenets that hail from that “within the bounds of the teachings of Islam.”
Therefore, if your ways and laws are not in agreement with what is found “within the bounds of the teachings of Islam,” then, according to the doctrine of Islam, as we have clearly read and seen, they have zero authoritative command over the “believer.” “Allah’s” Book is crystal clear on that.
Helping all clearly understand the laws governing the citizens of the Muslim nation, Sallaabee further provides, “The term Bai’ah, as well as its application in life, is something that is specific to the Islamic system of government; and it is foreign,” he states, “to all other forms of government.” (Ibid.) “Foreign to all other forms of government” including foreign to the governing system of the United States of America.
As Sallaabee, “Allah, and His Messenger” make clear, “the Islamic system of government …. Is foreign to all other forms of government,” because, “the main implication of the Bai’ah is that the Khaleefah and his people pledge to follow the laws of Islam in their entirety.” (Ibid.)
Thus, given, the pledge of allegiance is a basic tenet of Islam; one, as noted, demanded of all citizens of that nation, irrespective of where or when he/she may live; and, is, as noted, an oath on the part of that citizen, “to follow the laws of Islam in their entirety”; where/when/how is the Muslim free from doing just that?
Just where, when, and how, according to Islamic doctrine, does any Muslim have any right to do less then just that? Because in their oath of allegiance, they swore, “to follow the laws of Islam in their entirety.”
“Once more, As Sallaabee and “Allah and His Messenger” make clear, “Neither of the two parties of that pledge has the right to act contrary to Islamic law,” again, irrespective of where or when the Muslim party lives. Moreover, for so doing, “By being guilty of acting contrary to Islamic law,” not only has that one thereby broken their oath of allegiance, one has also thereby and thereupon, declared “war against the Islamic system of governance.” And not only that, but, “what is even worse,” by “acting contrary to Islamic law,” “one is stripped of the quality of having faith in Islam, a consequence,” writes Sallaabee, that is “made amply clear in this verse of the Noble Qur’an:
“ ‘But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.’ (Qur’an 4: 65).” (Ibid.)
Indeed, therefore, as cited in chapter one and two of this series.
Therefore, from the above we deduce what the believer in Muhammad deduces from the above. That being, if he/she pledges “allegiance to the Flag [Representative …] of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”; should liberties and/or “justice” allowed in the U.S. be at odds with that in “Allah’s Book,” this Muslim-rendered oath of allegiance will be meaningless. Farcical from stem to stern.
A flagrant mockery of the United States of America. A flagrant mockery “to the Republic for which it stands.”
Because, as borne out above and substantiated in numerous places in Qur’an and Sunnah, as long as the U.S. remains non-Islamic, if a citizen of the Muslim nation in sincerity pledged the words in our pledge of allegiance to our flag and nation, then, that sincere pledge would make that citizen an apostate, a traitor to the Islamic state. More to add on that in post yet to follow.
The same applies to taking the oath to serve in our armed forces, to defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath from the “Muslim” is true only in two scenarios; the first: only if that alleged Muslim is an apostate; the second: if our nation is a nation in compliance with that in Qur’an and Sunnah. Thus only if we are a nation of believers in Muhammad can a true believer in Muhammad sincerely swear to defend and protect our nation, and swear loyalty to it.
Yes, of course, they well may pledge alleged loyalty to our nation, if need be, for subterfuge—because as the alleged prophet declared, “War is deceit.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, The Book of Jihad, p. 165, #3030.) But, for now, that tenet of Islam aside …
Suffice to state, the Islam of the exemplary Medinese, unless it was for subterfuge, by no stretch of the imagination would have included an oath of allegiance made to a nation guided by other than “what Allah has revealed.” Guided by other then what is in the Qur’an and Sunnah.
These exemplary Muslims were busy forging a new nation of their own. Therefore, as it is to be with all citizens of the Muslim nation, that nation and its success captivated their efforts and devotion. Moreover, during the days of the alleged “prophet,” its laws and constitution, as history notes, were pouring, flowing, as it were, into the then Book of Allah in the making. As Dr. Sallaabee writes, “newly revealed Verses,” providing “in more and more detail,” details regarding “Islamic jurisprudence.” And the Book, as stated, that would hold the details of that law, therein, spelling out the principles on which that nation was to be governed by would be Kitab Allah [Book of Allah]. The life that would disclose and demonstrate the details of that law and that Book in action, the life of the alleged “Messenger of Allah.”
The nation that would represent and spread, across the globe, the governing system spelled out in that book: the Muslim Nation—the Nation [Ummah] of Muhammad. Therefore, as stated, the guide on how to form, forge, and institute this then new country and its laws then-in-the-making—which would be, for the Muslim, the only nation they would in sincerity swear and render allegiance to — the same book the Muslim teaches from, preaches from, learns from in every mosque or madrassa on this earth today: “Allah’s Book.”
For such reasons, one of the first orders of business upon Muhammad’s arrival in Medina was the establishment of a Masjid [“mosque, lit. a place of sajda or prostration (Bewley, P. 14.)]. Reason being, as it is anywhere, if Islam is to be established and prosper, as Sallaabee speaks to, “An Islamic society can achieve stability and coherence only if Islamic values and laws are applied, and only when the members of society have the right beliefs and apply Islamic manner.” (Sallaabee, The Noble Life of the Prophet, P. 743.) Moreover, those “qualities,” writes Sallaabee, “ are nurtured and developed in the Masjid.” For such reasons, as Sallaabee states, “ The Masjid is one of the most important pillars of Islamic society.” (Ibid.)
What’s more, just to touch on this invaluable aspect of the importance of the Masjid, for it indeed has many functions, one among those, it is a symbol of Islam established in the land. It is a university. So too, a place of refuge for the traveling Muslim, it is a sanctuary for all Muslims, but it is also, as it was in the days of the alleged Prophet: “the military command center for the Muslims.” (Ibid, P. 744.)
“Why,” one may be wondering, “do the Muslims need a military command center in our nation”? Answer: very simple, all nations need a Military. The Nation of Muhammad, no different with respect to that need.
And because Islam is what it is, and permitted full freedom to function in our nation, therefore, it is simply practicing the tenets of that alleged “religion” in Muslims insuring, here and elsewhere, their nation has, trained, skilled, and at the ready, cadres of their ready warriors. And as needed, a “military command center” for them.
As-Sallaabee speaks to, if Muslims are to be able to practice the tenets of their faith and thus governing system, here or elsewhere, they must first know those tenets so that they can know the laws they are to be governed by. How can they know them, so that they can then enact them, unless they have a place that teaches and preaches those details? Hence, the indispensableness of mosque and madrassas, worldwide.
As Sallaabee writes, as more and more verses were being, allegedly, revealed, the Qur’an thus began to provide “issues that had to do with the establishment of a new country and the duties running that country entailed.” (Sallaabee, The Noble Life of the Prophet, P. 728.) Details, provides, Qur’an, Sunnah, thus, as-Sallaabee, “such as performing Daw’ah to other nations and performing Jihaad in the cause of Allah.” (Ibid.)
“Daw’ah,” we note, defined as “calling non-Muslims to Islam”; “Jihad” defined as, “struggle, particularly fighting in the way of Allah to establish Islam.” (al-Misri, Ahmad Ibn Naqib, Reliance of the Traveller, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Translated by Nuh Ha Min Keller, amana publications, Maryland, U.S.A., 1994; Subject Index, P. 1143; Bewley, Glossary, P. 11, in that order.)
Therefore, provides history and therefore Sallaabee and countless others, because “the Prophet wisely dealt with both [above stated] concerns, the new country began to thrive and strengthen upon solid foundations.” (Sallaabee, The Noble Life of the Prophet, P. 728.) And as it thrived via attentiveness to Daw’ah and Jihad, its rule and borders expand far beyond Al-Medina.
Al-Medina, history provides, post emigration of the alleged prophet to it, was called, as above noted, “City of the Prophet.” And for no meaningless reason so called.
A tad bit of history on just how Yathrib became the “Al-Medina, City of the Prophet,” thus, as stated, the first city to showcase the embodiment of Islam.
Baladhuri relays to us, information from “ Al’’Abbas ibn Hisham al-Kalabi from his grandfather and Sharki ibn-al-Kutami-l-Kalabi,” stating, “When Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem, expelled of the Israelites those whom he expelled, and carried away those whom he carried into captivity,” of those who fled away, some settled in al-Hajaz, others in Wadi-l-Kura, others in Taima’, and others yet in Yathrib.
(Al-Baladhuri, Abu-l Abbas Ahmad ibn Jabir, The Origins of the Islamic State, a Translation of Kitab Futhuh al-Buldan, Hitti, First Gorgias Press Edition, 2002, Facsimile reprint of original edition, 1916, Columbia University P. 30, 31.)
He likewise provides, in the process of time, Arab Tha ‘labah ibn-‘Amr Muzaikiya, accompanied with his sons and followers, migrated to Yathrib. Moreover, history notes, at that time, as mentioned above, the people of Yathrib “were Jews.” (Ibid, P, 33.)
The Islamic record further relates, Tha ‘labah ibn-‘Amr Muzaikiya, his sons and followers, at their arrival in the Yathrib area, “they settled outside the city.” And there, states the record, “they grew and increased in number and became so strong as to drive the Jews from Yathrib.” (Ibid.)
Therefore, according to Islamic history, after that, “they came to live inside the city and the Jews outside of it.” (Ibid.) And the record provides, the “Yathrib” tribes of “Al-Aus and al-Khazraj are the sons of Harithah ibn-Tha ‘labah ibn-‘Amr Muzaikiya ibn ‘Amir.” (Ibid.) “Al-Aus and al-Khazraj” are the Ansar.
Hamidullah relates, Quba was/is “a village south of Medina.” Thus “Quba [was] … in the outskirts of Medina.” (Hamidullah, P. 15, 16, respectively.) Hamidullah provides, to the east of municipal area today known as Medina, “the Jewish villages succeeded one another from Quba to Uhud.” (Ibid, P. 47.)
And in the year of the Hijrah, as the head of the new “religion” and governing system coming in and overtaking Medina, to include Yathrib, escorted by armed guards came the alleged Prophet of Islam.
(Ibid, + P 16; Ibn Sa’d, Abu ‘Abdulla Muhammad, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English Translation by, S. Moinul Haq, M.A, PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar, M.A., Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi-1 10002, 1972, Vol. I of Parts I & II, [Set of 2 Vols]. ISBN 81-7151-127-9; P. 271, 274, 275.) More on that triumphant entry in post to follow…
Hamidullah further provides, “Thereafter the rights and duties of the ruler and the ruled were promulgated in a precise document, which constituted a federal—and even confederal—City-State in the plain (Jawf) of Medina.” (Hamidullah, P. 16, 17 respectively.) [“Medinah is a jawf, a vast plain—one day’s journey on camel on length, and as much in breadth.”(Ibid, P. 108.)]
We note, that is rather bold and sure footing for a new comer. One, whom we could call, a “Johnny-come-lately.” How was it he was in such a position? Answer: the above mentioned agreement of Aqaba.
Therefore, as the Waqidi record states, “When the Messenger of God arrived in Medina, the Jews, all of them, were reconciled with him, and he wrote an agreement between him and them.” (Al-Waqidi, P. 87.)
“When, the Messenger of God arrived in Medina,” reads the narrative. “When,” not later, not after there a while, but upon his arrival to “his” City, he brought the Jews of Yathrib into an acceptable agreement. Thus, “he wrote” or had others do it as he dictated to them, the details of that “agreement between him and them [Jews of Medina/Yathrib].” (Ibid.)
And in that agreement, relates the maghazi record, “He stipulated conditions to them” — again, noteworthy footing for one, as stated above, “Johnny-come-lately.” Moreover, in that agreement, the alleged “Messenger of God,” in stipulating the conditions the Jews of Yathrib would now live subject to, among those conditions, “it was stipulated that they would not help an enemy against him.” (Ibid.)
What’s more, that constitution for that then newly founded City/State would also declare, Medina was now a Haram—“a Sacred Precinct, a protected area in which certain behavior is forbidden and other behavior necessary.” (Hamidullah, P. 17, Bewley, Glossary, P. 155.) The therein “forbidden” behavior as well as the “other behavior necessary” would showcase the new “religion” of the alleged “Prophet of Islam.”
That alleged prophet is the man of whom, according to Islamic doctrine, the infallible word of “Allah Almighty” declares, “Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only a revelation revealed.” (An-Najm 53: 3-4)
That verse as Imam Doi renders it in Shariah, “Nor does he say (ought) of his own desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him.” (P. 45, Chapter: The Sunnah: Second Primary Source of Shar ‘iah.)
Speaking to that same concept, comments from, as they say, those with knowledge in Islam, provide, “These words show that whatever the Holy Prophet (SAW) does [is] according to the Book of Allah, whether it is written in the Qur’an or found in the records of authentic ahadith.” (Muslim, ibid [V. III, Book Pertaining to Punishment in Islam], P. 150# 1697.)
Hence, we deduce, according to Islamic doctrine, when the alleged prophet wrote up or dictated the details in the above-mentioned document, he did so by the inspiration sent down to him, as we will soon read more on; he had written therein only that which was in accordance with the then in the making, “Book of Allah.” (Surat al-Baqara:198, al-Anfal :75, al-Hajj: 39, An- Nisa:65, etc.; Ishaq, P. 231 – 234.)
Thus, those who believed in the message of the newly arrived head of Medina would be called “believers”; those who rejected his message, disbelieving his claims of prophet-hood and all that came with that, would be classified and called “unbelievers.” And of course there too would be the inevitable “hypocrites.” “Al-Munifiqun”—unbelievers displaying outward Islam, therefore, as long as they displayed outward Islam, counted among believers. More specific focus on Al-Munifiqun in post yet to follow.
And for each group, that constitution would provide details of acts to allow all to know, with relative ease, in which group one stood.
Thus, Medina, City of the Prophet, would become the first City/State to display Islam. Ergo, the product of that Islam-on-Display City/State, spoken to in the Preface of “the Muwatta of Imam Malik, who passed his whole life in Medina.”
(Imam Malik, Muwatta, Translated with Exhaustive Notes by Professor Muhammad Rahimuddin, Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Publishers & Booksellers, Lahore-Pakistan, Reprint 2005, Preface.)
Therefore, provides that record, having had the benefit of “direct access to the most reliable authorities on Hadith, because most of the leading Companions of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) lived and died in Medina,” Maliki’s Muwatta is regarded by many a scholar as “the most authentic book on Hadith.” (Preface, P. iii.) Because, as touched on, “The juristic verdicts in Muwatta reflect the practice of the Medinese and the consensus of the Medinese scholars.” (Ibid)
“The word ‘Muwatta’ literally means the trodden or beaten path.” It “means that path trodden or beaten path which has been trodden upon by all the Companions of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) … it means the agreed practice of the Companions of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him).” (Ibid.)
The practice of the Companions was such because it was the practice of their leader, the alleged, “Holy Prophet.” The man, who, as cited above, according to Islamic doctrine, did nothing of his own accord, did and said all he did only by the will, leave, and inspiration he allegedly received from “Allah.”
Therefore, in the Muwatta, are the narratives of the trodden or beaten path of the first generation of “believers,” the exemplary works of the Medinese Muslims. Those who learned their Islam directly from the alleged Prophet of Islam himself. Therefore, if it happened in or around Medina, with the permission, sanctioning, or approval of the “Prophet,” it was safe to accept, such were sanctioned acts of Islam.
For such reasons the widespread regard for the determinative value of amal ahl al-Medinah (the practice of the Medinans). (Kamali, P. 103.) Guidance, “religious” as well as political.
Hence the application of the term Haram for Medina: [Haram] it signifies an entity that is “half-religious and half-political.” Hence, “Medina is a Haram,” because Medina represented and showcased Islam, and Islam was an entity that was and is “half-religious and half-political.” (Hamidullah, P. 17.)
And in that newly formed City-State, the implementing of the above-mentioned constitution, therewith implementing Islam.
This new governing system, disclosed in the do’s and don’ts of the said constitution, as stated, provided specificity for both “the ruler and the ruled.” The Law that would govern that newly formed nation would be Islam. That law growing as “revelation” allegedly came as needed for each specific situation. The ruler: the alleged “Prophet of Islam.” The ruled: all in Medina; soon, countless others.
Hence, the historian-noted “Islamic religio-political community” of Medina, which, historians note, “depended on wholehearted belief that Muhammad was a prophet and the Qur’an the word of God.”
(Al-Tabari: The History of al-Tabari: Abu Ja ‘far Muhammad b. Jarir, The History of al-Tabari , Volume VII, The Foundation of the Community, Translated by M.V. McDonald, Annotated by W. Montgomery Watt. SUNY Press, 1987.Translator’s Foreward [sic],xxviii.)
A belief, historians likewise note, that was “endangered by some of the criticisms made by the Jews.” (Ibid.)
Moreover, the authority behind both the above-stated law and the above-noted ruler would be declared, as touched on, to come from none other than “Allah Almighty.” Thus, included in the above-noted “Constitution of Medina,” the declaration, “God approves of this document.” (Al-Tabari: Volume VII,Translator’s Foreward, [sic], xv; Ibn Ishaq, P. 233 respectively.)
Hence, it would come to be known that “His Book” would contain the laws for this newly formed nation. His laws therein, to the negation of all other laws, would be what those who followed the way of Muhammad would be governed by.
And “Allah’s Book” would declare, in addition to all other precepts and guidance provided therein, the same principle spelled out in that initial constitution for the first generation of Muslims: “the detail of final authority resting with the Prophet Muhammad in case of disputes between individuals.” (Hamidullah, P. 17.) A precept, declared in Qur’an, provided in sunnah, and echoed in the consensus of the ulama—that threesome, if you will, a safety net for the believer, built into Islam—as we will read more on herein in due time.
Dr. al-Sallaabee, speaks to that declaration this way: “Judgement in all matters – trade disputes, religious issues, marital discord, crimes, etc.”– in others words, “in all matters” as meaning just that: in all matters; it “was with Allah and his messenger.” (As-Sallaabee, The Noble Life of the Prophet, P. 792.)
What’s more, in addition to this constitution and governing details for this newly formed nation, as previously noted, as an addendum to it, was a treaty with “the Jewish tribes inhabiting Medina.” (Ibid.) Yet they, Islamic historians provide, in spite of entering the above-mentioned treaty, because the lion’s share of them, held to their own religion refusing to accept the “religion” of the alleged Arabian prophet, they were a problem. Problem-citizens, we could rightly call the, of the then newly formed nation.
However, their resistance to accepting the religio side of Islam notwithstanding, they would soon find, as citizens of Muhammad’s nation, they too were among the above-mentioned “ruled.” Those subject to the decisions of the alleged “Messenger of Allah.” Those subject to the new governing system then overtaking Medina, which, of course was Islam. They had to be so, because, in spite of their Jewish religion they held to, they were, nonetheless, citizens then of the Muslim nation. And as such, subject to its law concerning them.
Dr. As-Sallaabee, as do others, speaks to that fact, stating, “The Constitution clearly expressed that the Jewish inhabitants of Al-Medinah were indeed citizens of the Muslim nation.” (Ibid, P. 791.) And more clearly stated in another article of the said constitution, “‘The Jews of the Banu Awf are a nation with the believers.’” Therefore, it was, provides history thus Sallaabee, “Islam considered those among the People of the Book who lived in Muslim lands to be citizens – ‘a nation with the believers’ – as long as they fulfilled their obligations.” (Ibid. P. 792.)
Moreover, as touched on above, for all in that nation, Medina would provide all object lessons of Islam needed for all to understand this new governing system of the alleged Arabian prophet.
Thus, when Mecca fell to Islamic control and rule, history notes, following the pattern set by the Muhajirun and Ansar, then, inhabitants of Medina, “The people assembled in Mecca to swear their allegiance to the Messenger of God in Islam.”
(al-Tabari, Abu Ja ‘far Muhammad b. Jarir, The History of al-Tabari , Vol. VIII, The Victory of Islam, Muhammad at Medina, Translated and Annotated by Michael Fishbein, University of California, Los Angeles, State University of New York Press, 1997, ISBN 0-7914-3149-5 [alk. paper]. –ISBN 0-7914-3150-9 [pbk.alk. paper]; V. VIII, P. 182.)
“Umar b, al-Khattab,” there, “administering the oath of the people. He received from them the oath of allegiance to the Messenger Of God, to heed and obey God and His Messenger to the extent of their ability.” (Ibid.)
That oath remains the same today. All oaths made to any qualified to receive such an oath is in essence, as borne out above, the oath the first generation of Muslims rendered to the alleged founder of the Muslim nation. An oath, as above stated, “to heed and obey God and His Messenger.” Hence the understood meaning of the Bai’ah: “pledge” to live “within the bounds of the teachings of Islam,” pledge to “to follow the laws of Islam in their entirety.” In other words, in short, pledge to obey the commands borne out in Qur’an and Sunnah.
First the men swore their allegiance, then the women, (Ibid, PP. 182, 183.) But all Muslims swore their allegiance to the leader of their nation. As borne out above, doing so is simply practicing one’s Islam; conversely, failing to do so is failing to practice ones alleged Islam.
For such reasons, as cited by As-Sallaabee above, when they rendered their pledge, they surrendered their “right to act contrary to Islamic law,” they swore to live “within the bounds of the teachings of Islam.” Therefore, for anyone of them to do other than precisely that was, as stated, a declaration of war, a bold and blatant declaration of ones open apostasy.
And in the wake of the death of the alleged founder of Islam, Caliph Abu Bakr, as he usurped the leadership of the Muslim nation, he understood the inveterateness that the template of Medina of old would provide for the that nation for all times. Therefore, as history notes, disciplined, ample and purposeful were the pains he took to insure, he “Obeyed Allah,” thus, he obeyed “Allah’s Messenger,” thus he did as he had witnessed that alleged messenger do.
As evidenced in the details historians provide on what history calls “Abu Bakr’s War Against the Apostates.” (As-Sallaabee, The Biography of ABU BAKR AS-SIDDEEQ, P. 347.)
“Ar-Riddah, or apostasy,” provide historians, “basically means to exit the fold of Islam after having been a Muslim.” (Ibid.) The same relate, when the alleged prophet of Islam died, his death “acted as a trigger to set off” the deeply-seated disbelief in Muhammad and his message in their hearts and minds of many a citizen in the Muslim nation. (Ibid, P. 351.)
Therefore, as will be spoken to in more detail in post to follow, “‘When the Messenger of Allah died and Abu Bark became leader (of the Muslim nation), some Arabs apostatized.” (Ibid, P. 358.) Make big, bold, and underscored the “some” therein mentioned. But Abu Bakr, according to Islamic history, came to that position of leadership not only uniquely qualified to be “The Khaleefah of the Messenger of Allah,” he likewise came to that position uniquely qualified to deal with the issue then foremost at hand: rampant apostasy within the Muslin nation.
As the men of knowledge in Islam put it (As-Sallaabee, Ibid, P. 235.), focusing on that generation of men, and specifically on Abu Bakr, and his unique qualifications to be the leader of Muhammad’s ummah, “Abu Bakr was the most knowledgeable of all of the Prophet’s Companions. He adhered closely to the Prophet’s company through every stage of the Prophet’s life….” (Ibid, P. 240.)
As such, being the devotee to “Allah and His Messenger” that Abu Bakr clearly was, “It was clear that Abu Bakr was not going to invent a new way of ruling the Muslim nation; rather, he was going to adhere closely to the blueprint that was left behind by the Prophet—his sayings, deeds, and legal rulings….” (Ibid, P. 241.)
As earlier noted here in, in Abu Bakr so doing, “Abu Bakr did not deviate from the Prophet’s methodology by more than even the span of the hand or, for that matter, the width of a strand of hair.” Therefore, affirm the men of knowledge, “This is why we find that, during the early days of his rule, Abu Bakr made key decisions that were exactly in keeping with the methodology and known wishes of the Prophet ….(Ibid.)
And for such reasons, on account of “the methodology and known wishes of the Prophet,” Abu Bakr led the ummah of “Allah’s Messenger” just as Islamic State of late itself ruled/rules when it held land and cities in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere: with the “caliphate-based system of rule.” Which is, of course, simply, “the only correct and legal system of governance in the Muslim nation.” (Ibid, P. 237.)
IS governed and led just as did Abu Bakr.
And Abu Bakr governed and led, as noted above, “exactly in keeping with the methodology and known wishes of the Prophet.” And the alleged prophet led and governed, in keeping with the instruction in “Kitab-Allah”: “We have sent down to thee the Book in truth, That [sic] you might judge between men, as guided By Allah…,” (an-Nisa 4:105) Guided, governed, by Shair’ah.
But before the demise of the alleged founder of Islam, he and the Medinese Muslims provided lessons of Islam in action. Lessons of Shari’ah. Lessons for all Muslims for all times, clear delineation of the embodiment of Islam, thus, the blueprint they are to follow irrespective of when or where their live. As touched on before, if it happened in Al-Madinah, at the order of, or with permission granted by, or with the approval of the alleged prophet, or if the act was done by “the prophet” himself, then, with few exceptions, such are actions that, according to Islamic doctrine, belong in the life of every believer.
Moreover, history relates, it was in Al-Medina, one day, the Muslim troops were summoned to mount their steeds, put on their weapons, face themselves and their mounts towards Badr. That they did. Thus, history relates, the “Prophet” and his army “marched (ghaza) to the Battle of Badr on the morning of Friday, the seventeenth of Ramadan, the nineteenth month of AH [Al-Hijra (post emigration to Medina)].” Those who remained in the city, soon they would hear tell of the lessons of Badr. (Waqidi, P. 3, Intro.)
And at Badr examples were made of precisely what “Allah’s” fulfilled and satisfied command was for those who oppose him and his messenger, Muhammad. Examples that would become warp and woof of this new Islamic “religio-political” system, then allegedly, in the revealing.
At Badr, line by line, page-by-page of Islamic history was in the making. The tenets of Islam delineated.
At Badr, the one whom, as cited above, Islamic doctrine declares did and said nothing of his own volition, but did and said all he did by the inspiration given to him from “Allah,” “The Messenger of God compared ‘Umar with the angles such as Gabriel who reveals the displeasure of God and the revenge against the enemies of God.” (Ibid, P. 55.)
Because, at Badr, reads the record, was Gabriel at the head of the band of angels allegedly dispatched to fight on the side of the “believers.” There, directing the said angels — all of them armed with the command to “strike their [the disbelievers] neck s [sic] [(behead them)] and strike all their fingers and joints” — as they, with their examples, were motivating the believers. (Ibid, P. 40, 8:12 , al-Jalalayn, and elsewhere.)
In their examples, therewith, as stated above, revealing “God’s” revenge against his enemies—those who rejected the alleged prophet of Islam and the message and governing system he brought.
At Badr, the above-cited command —“‘Strike above the necks ;— meaning the necks. ‘Strike them in every fingertip’ — hand and leg. ‘That is because they were hostile to God and His prophet,’” — was allegedly given and became a basic tenet in Islam concerning all who did the same actions. (Waqidi, P. 67.)
How were they hostile? what actions did “God” count as hostility to his alleged prophet?
“They disbelieved in God and repudiated His prophet. “ (Ibid.)
Thus, at Badr, the record relates, the terse lessons of how, “he who was killed was killed for a clear reason, and he lives who lives among them for a clear reason.” Indeed — the former, killed for disbelieving the alleged prophet; the latter, left to live because he chose to “convert to Islam,” thus believe the alleged prophet. (Ibid, P. 68, 67, in that order.)
Therefore, promised “God,” for those who do the same as the former, “Miserable will be the outcome.” As in, the misery of Badr will be visited upon such a people. And when that visitation comes, it will be as it was at Badr: “You will not kill them but God will kill them.” (Ibid, [Surah al-Anfal: 16, 17, respectively].) Kill unbelievers with the hands and swords of the “believers.”
Hence, “‘evil will be the morning of those who were warned’: [as was so] the day of Badr.” (Ibid.)
Object lesson’s time, tenet-forging time. Qur’an and Islam revealing time. Hence, “His saying, ‘Taste the penalty for your disbelief’: referring to [examples made, lessons shown] the day of Badr.” (Ibid [Waqidi, 8: 14].)
At Badr, the maghazi record further provides, as we will return to herein in time, this, Umar’s resolve concerning those who had rejected this alleged prophet: “‘Kill and do not ransom.’” (Ibid, P.55.)
And “Sa ‘d b. Mu ‘adh,” affirms the same record, “used to say the same.” (Ibid.) (Remember this man’s name, more on this exemplary Muslim later.)
At Badr, as expressed in a lament of Kab ibn Al-Ashraf, concerning the disbelieving Quraysh spoken of above, “Badr’s mill churned out the blood of its people.” “The best of the people were slain round its cisterns.” “The Kings were left lying” dead, on the ground, “How many noble handsome men, the refuge of the homeless, were slain!” (Waqidi, P. 92) As round and over them, the dust of the sand-hills of Badr swirled, and the chafing bits of the horses clattered.
What’s more, Ishaq provides, “When Badr was over,” clearly, so thrilled with the clear object lessons for believers provided by the carnage inflicted upon the disbelievers in that battle, “God sent down the whole Surah Anfal about it.” (Ibn Ishaq, P. 321.)
Part of that sent down, as touched on above: “Then God said, ‘Then thy Lord revealed to the angles, I am with you so strengthen those that believe.’ i.e. help those that believe.
“‘I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, so strike off their heads and cut off all their fingers…’ ” And why was that command given, for and to whom does it apply?
“God” answers, as rendered by Ishaq, once more clarifying, “because they opposed God and His apostle and he who opposes God and His apostle (will find) God severe in punishment.’” (Ibid, 8: 12 -13.)
Severe in punishment, indeed, that dealt, measured out by and with the hands of “those that believe.”
And as the dust-devils spun-up by the whirling and twirling of camels and horses a-battle settled, and the war-cries fell silent, and the birds of prey, screeching, swirling eagerly overhead, dove in to take their share of the available remains that had fallen there; Islamic history states, Gabriel came to the “Prophet” and asked him, “O Muhammad…. Are you satisfied?” (Waqidi, P. 57.)
Waqidi relates, Gabriel, as touched on above, dispatched to make clear Allah’s displeasure and revenge, informed Muhammad, “O Muhammad, my Lord sent me to you and He commanded me not to leave you until you are satisfied. Are you satisfied?” (Ibid.)
And the record relates, not only for the blood of the “unbelievers’” that the ground had and was yet then soaking up from “Badr”, but for that which would soon yet fall , “The Messenger of God replied, ‘Yes,’” indeed he was satisfied. (Ibid.)
Then the record relates, “The Messenger of God approached with the prisoners until he was in ‘Irq al-Zabya,” and there “he commanded ‘Asim b. Thabit b. Abu l-Aqlah to cut off the head of ‘Uqba b. Abi Mu ‘ayt.” And “Uqba,” pleading for his life, “began to say, ‘O woe is me, for what reason will I be killed…?’” And to that “the Messenger of God” answered, “For your enmity to God and His Prophet.” (Ibid.)
Then, provides the said record, ‘Uqba pleaded, “O Muhammad, grant me your favor and do for me as you would to one of my people. If you kill them, kill me, and if you are kind to them, be kind to me, and if you take ransom from them, let me be one of those. O Muhammad,” pleaded ‘Uqba, “who will take care of the youth?’” (Ibid.)
Thereupon, reads the narrative, “The Messenger of God said, ‘Fire.’” Fire will take care of the youth. And with that once more he demanded, “Lead him, O ‘Asim, and cut off his head.’” Therefore, reads the record, “‘Asim did so.’”
Then, with ‘Uqba’s body and his severed head fallen on the ground, his blood gushing into that ground, “the Messenger of God said, ‘ Miserable is the man that you were, and by God, I do not know one who rejects God and His Messenger, and His Book, and was more harmful to his Prophet. I praise God who kills you and establishes my satisfaction over you.” (Ibid.)
Lessons in the learning, tenets of Islam in the displaying.
Examples being provided on just how, now, with Islam, “God” would deal with those who rejected him and his alleged messenger, examples of why, and how, he [“God”] would kill them: for their unbelief, and do so by using the hands of believers.
Therefore, history notes, “God humbled the disbelievers, the Hypocrites and Jews. There did not remain a Jew or a hypocrite in Medina but he had submitted because of the battle of Badr.” (Ibid, P. 61.) Qur’an allegedly revealed at Badr, as some alleged Moderates claim, just for that specific battle, enemy, and place? Why then did the alleged messenger of “Allah”—the one who commanded, “‘Take your practices from me’” — bring others into submission to Islam’s authority, via, the lessons of Badr? (Al-Qurtubi, P.405.)
Thus, day by day, Medina steadily grew into the citadel Islam that it became. Did so, as stated earlier in this chapter, because it was the starting point of the Muslim nation, thus, in Al-Madina, the leader of the Muslim nation and the citizens of the same, both, pledged their allegiance “to follow the laws of Islam in their entirety.”
For such reasons, history notes, there came a day, “When the fight at the trench and the affair of the B. Qurayza [more details on those in post following] were over,” because, Muhammad was allegedly armed with the command to “fight the leaders of unbelief,” front and center came “the matter of Sallam b. ‘Abu’l-Huqayq known as Abu Rafi ‘.”(Ibn Ishaq, P. 482, Surat At-Tawba :12, Ibn Ishaq, Ibid, in that order.)
Ishaq relates, Abu Rafi’s name came up with the names of the leaders who had worked collecting “the mixed tribes together against the apostle [in the battle of the trench].” (Ibn Ishaq, P. 482.)
Therefore, because the Ansari tribe of the Aus held the “honor” of having brutally murdered Jewish leader, Kab ibn al-Asraf [more details on that in post following], done so “because of his enmity towards the apostle and because he instigated men against him,” the Khazraj tribe of the Ansar, yearned to hold the same honor. The honor of implementing the Shariah of their alleged prophet. (Ibid.) The honor of following the laws of Islam in their entirety.
Therefore, history relates, the Khazraj declared, concerning the Aus and their killing of Kab ibn al-Asraf, “They will not have this superiority over us in the apostle’s eyes and in Islam’.” These two tribes, “competing the one with the other like two stallions,” just one of many boons “Allah” allegedly bestowed on his “messenger,” by inclining these two Arab Medinese tribes to Islam. Thus, the record relates, the Khazraj, resolute, “they would not rest until they could do something similar,” to that end, they spoke among themselves, asking, “what man was hostile to the apostle as Ka ‘b.?” (Ibid.)
“And then they remembered Sallam who was in Khaybar,” states the record. And having so done, they sought “and obtained the apostle’s permission to kill him.” (Ibid.)
For such reasons, this telling among the pages of Islamic history of the Medinain Khazraj, executing the above Islamic tenet and prescribed punishment for the above stated “offence,” on Jew, Ibn al-Huqayq, in Khaybar where the latter then lived:
“They attacked you bearing light swords, as lively as
lions in thick brush.
They reached you in your own town and made you tastes
death with swift swords.
Seeking victory for their prophets religion,
Belittling every difficulty.” (Ibn Kathir, al-Nabawiyya, Vol. III, P. 188.)
Once more, I ask, Khalid Masood, along with all other alleged believers: how is your Islam measuring up against the Islam of those with whom “Allah is well pleased”? Measuring up against the “practice of the Medinese”?
Because, as Imam Doi speaks to, the above provides, snapshots of “the ‘Way of life’ the custom and practice of the early Muslim Community.” So too therein provided, snapshots of “acts [that] were performed by the Prophet and therefore,” they are acts “to be imitated by all faithful Muslims.” For such reasons, as history provides, “the early pious Muslims,” whom the Qur’an and sunnah point all believers to to follow with like-kind deeds, they “imitated him and strictly followed his example.” (Doi, P. 52.)
For such reasons, the well-know indispensableness of the way and practice of the inhabitants of Al-Medina.
([1] Kalami, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Dr. Mohammad Hasim Kamali, The Islamic Texts Society, UK, 2003, Reprinted 2006, 2008, 20011; ISBN: 978 0946621 82 8 p.p.)
Khalid Masood, no Muslim, mere Muslim, or one among “those who believe”?
Chapter Three