1- reasons behind describing the prophet as a terrorist

2- what is terrorism?

3-the innocence of prophets and messengers from terrorism

4-a misconception and its falsification

5-the difference between terrorism and jihad:

6-accepting others is the base of religious freedom in islam

7-the status of non muslims living in islamic countries

introduction

praise be to allah who had chosen muhammad – messenger of allah – the noblest among humans, and the greatest along the history of mankind. he is the leader (imam) of the prophets and messengers, and the master of intercessors on the day of judgment. and none of the paid-for pens nor the deceptive media campaigns can attack him or his religion or his morals, after allah (the almighty) praised him saying: "and verily, you (o muhammad) are on an exalted (standard of) character." { sur'at al-qalam, v: 4 }. this praising of the almighty allah to him enriches him from others' praising  and wards off any misconception said about him.

one of the prophet's great qualities were the ability to forgive and showing mercy towards all people. almighty allah says : "verily, there has come unto you a messenger from amongst yourselves (i.e. whom you know well). it grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty. he is anxious over you (to be rightly guided, to repent to allâh, and beg him to pardon and forgive your sins in order that you may enter paradise and be saved from the punishment of the hell-fire); for the believers (he is) full of pity, kind, and merciful. " { sur'at attawbah, v:128}. his mercy is in fact upon the whole world, allah (the almighty) says: "and we have sent you (o muhammad pbuh): not but as a mercy for the ‘âlamîn (mankind, jinn and all that exists)." { sur'at al-anbia,v: 107 }. he named himself the "prophet of mercy" as he felt the importance of mercy in both his life and the message of islam. abu-musa al-ash'ari reported that the messenger of allah (pbuh) mention to us his names: " i am muhammad, ahmad, al-mukaffi, al-hashir, prophet of repentance, and the prophet of mercy". narrated by muslim.

the surprising thing nowadays is to find some jaundices people accusing the prophet "of mercy and peace" with harsh words which shows their complete ignorance or animosity. they described him as being a terrorist, although he is the most person far from this description (pbuh). he is the most merciful person among all humans and the farer from injustice, revenge, and hostility and the most one of them who cares about applying the lawful rules and the chastest, kindest, gentlest, and humblest human being. the poet ahmad shawky was right in comparing the prophet (pbuh) with the kindness of the parents towards their children when doing mistakes, he said: "that can be translated as: "

وإذا عفوت فقادرا ومقدرا                   لا يستهين بعفوك الجهلاء

you have the power and are respected in forgiving…even clueless don't undervalue your power of forgiving…

وإذا رحمت فأنت أم أو أب                 هذان في الدنيا هما الرحماء

you are just like a father or mother in your mercy….those "the father and mother" are the real merciful creatures in this world…

1-reasons behind describing the prophet as a terrorist

the reasons that some writers and biased people use in describing the prophet as a terrorist are no more than six, which are:

1.     dissecting religious texts without looking at them as a whole. islamic law consists of religious affairs pertaining to the world we live in as well as the hereafter, war and peace; therefore reading texts regarding war and its rules and principles while ignoring texts regulating a life full of morals, peace and ethics, may lead to confusion and misunderstanding.

2.     lack of understanding regarding the circumstances of the incidents as being the cause of sending the quranic verses. this study is known as "the reason of revelation" which is vitally important to know in order to understand the verses.

3.     ignorance of the arabic language. reading any religious text in its original language clears up ambiguity and vagueness. there are generalizations in the verses which intend a specific meaning and vise versa. there are synonyms, multiple meaning words, etc. so knowing the arabic grammar is very important to understand   the holy quran properly.

4.     ignorance of the philosophy of life. there is peace and war in this life, so a right and true religion must regulate and manage all circumstances. because all life matters must be managed by its creator who is the all knowing about his creatures. and leaving this live to be managed by people without heavenly rules will destroy everything; clear examples we can see when people don’t follow the right path in their behaviors. 

5.     ignorance of the biography of the prophet (pbuh), historical events, and interpreting the events by specific sects or according certain schools of thought without being objective in understanding the events.

6.     grudge and hatred. these are the reasons which accompany almost every fanatic and spiteful person of the pure religion and the noble prophet


(pbuh). allah says: "they wish that you reject faith, as they have rejected (faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another)".(AN-NISSA', V:89)

2-what is terrorism?

before disproving the calumny of calling the prophet (pbuh) a terrorist, we would like to define terrorism and distinguish between it and fighting in the sake of allah "jihad". many people mix terms up which lead to distortion in one's thinking and opinions. language wise: the word terrorism is derived from the arabic "ra-hi-ba" which means "being afraid". from the same verb another meaning is derived, "a-kha-fa" which means "causing fear to someone'" .

terrorism is causing fear, and it is caused by several reasons, starting off through psychological implications; as for example fear of being scorned or being defamed, is the lowest level of terror that is known as psychological terrorism. this kind of terror may change into a permanent defamation of ones character, so the psychological harm becomes a social one. then people may boycott this person economically, so the harm changes from an abstract harm to personal one that may cause poverty and collateral damages. this all can change into direct physical harm to the person and his family and guests. this level of terrorism is very dangerous and it's the level of infiltration and destruction. self-defense is justified in this case as a basic human right.

this introduction, leads us that terrorism can be defined as hurting others whether physically or emotionally as well as refusing to listen or debate with them. it starts off by accusing of lying and scorning which ends up with a war of destruction and genocide. between these two main levels are many levels of terror; informative, economical, social, moral, etc.

3-the innocence of the prophets and messengers (pbu them all) from terrorism

from the previous definition of terrorism we find that it does not fit any of the prophets or the messengers of allah. they only wanted their people to argue with them and to leave them deliver allah's message without harming them. but in fact the real terrorists are those who block the stairway for people who want to find the truth that is sent by allah through his prophets and messengers, and the first one who has done this is iblis "the devil" (upon him the curse of allah) for he said as it is mentioned in the holy qur'an: " (iblîs) said: "because you have sent me astray, surely i will sit in wait against them (human beings) on your straight path."

{ sur'at al-a'raf, v: 16 }.

the enemies of allah's messengers use all possible ways to drive people away from the straight path "guidance", starting a severe media war represented in many different ways, as using obscenity in speech about the messengers of allah and describing them with obscene words, almighty allah says: " likewise, no messenger came to those before them but they said: "a sorcerer or a madman!"" { sur'at athariat, v: 52 }. they may even make an economical siege upon muslims and start spreading bad morals in these societies ,,,etc. afterwards starts the section of killing; using the whip against arguing, the sword against the right, and beating against the truth. terrorism starts with the idea of refusing the commensalisms with the "other" and ends with killing the "other", even if that other is a prophet or a messenger;  allah  says about moses in the holy quran: " and a believing man of fir‘aun’s (pharaoh) family, who hid his faith said: "would you kill a man because he says: my lord is allâh, and he has come to you with clear signs (proofs) from your lord?" { sur'at ghafir, v: 28 }.

the enemies of the messengers have tried a lot to harass them and to get them out of their lands. allah the almighty says: "and those who disbelieved, said to their messengers: "surely, we shall drive you out of our land, or you shall return to our religion." so their lord revealed to them: "truly, we shall destroy the zâlimûn (polytheists, disbelievers and wrong-doers). { sur'at ibraheem, v: 13 }. their faulty hands could have even reached them causing them harm and killing them in addition to their followers, "verily! those who disbelieve in the ayât (proofs, evidence, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of allâh and kill the prophets without right, and kill those men who order just dealings,… then announce to them a painful torment." {sur'at al-i-imran,v: 21}.

muhammad the messenger of allah (pbuh) faced many kinds of terrorism from his nation (people) until allah has saved him from them, allah the almighty says: "and (remember) when the disbelievers plotted against you (o muhammad) to imprison you, or to kill you, or to get you out (from your home, i.e. makkah); they were plotting and allâh too was plotting; and allâh is the best of those who plot." { sur'at al-anfal, v: 30 }.

4- refuting a misconception

the word ( terror ) and its derivatives occurred in the holy qur'an in tweleve places. and it is never mentioned as an order to terrify the enemy, but to explain the preparations made when facing the enemy, and it was mentioned in one place of the holy qura'n were the almighty allah says: "and make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of allâh and your enemy"

{ sur'at al-anfal, v: 60 }. to terrify - in this verse - means in the battle and that's why  the almighty allah ordered us to prepare war weapons to fight against the enemy with all what we've got from strength and ability.

it is obvious that all wars aim to win the battle, terrifying the enemy and gaining booties. war is not a game, and the stronger wins at the end, and that's why all countries and armies insist on winning the battle from the first go, and spread terror in the soul of their enemies. that is what the qur'an says; not frightening the inoffensive people or getting rid of the enemies by betrayal ways as the overpowering do, because of the principles of islam that is to respect others' rights in beliefs, having an honorable life and an active participation in society… and not to start hostility upon others.

glorified allah says : "

" 39. and those who, when an oppressive wrong is done to them, take revenge.


     40. the recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof; but whoever forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is with allâh. verily, he likes not the zâlimûn (oppressors, polytheists, and wrong-doers).


     41. and indeed whosoever takes revenge after he has suffered wrong, for such there is no way (of blame) against them.


     42. the way (of blame) is only against those who oppress men and rebel in the earth without justification; for such there will be a painful torment".{ sur'at ashora, v: 39-42 }.

5-the difference between terrorism and jihad:

there is a deliberate mix up between terrorism and jihad. the trumpets of deviation miss-call jihad for terrorism, and there's a vast difference between both. confusing the two terms, demands describing allah's messenger (pbuh) with traits that are not in him, just because he fought for the sake of allah. not everyone who fights can be described as a terrorist, or else all of allah's messengers, prophets (pbut), and kings would be considered terrorists. off course this is false by all means of common sense, jurisdiction or reality. terrorism by definition is an illegal act of aggression performed by a gang, a group or a country -as it is the case with the zionist entity- for the sake of achieving special goals. terrorism here is a means of spoiling earth and destroying humanity, which is rejected by all religions and laws. islam has adopted a firm position against terrorism, for allah (the almighty) said: "and help one another in righteousness and piety, and help not one another in sin and aggression"……. (al-mai'da ,from verse: 2).

islam has imposed the hardest penalties on those who commit acts that endanger public security such as bandits…….the following verses deal with such kind of transgressors: "the only punishment of those who wage war against allah and his messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is that they should be murdered, or crucified, or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned. this shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"………..(al-ma'ida ,verse: 33).

jihad on the other hand is a part of the methodology of allah's prophets and messengers including our prophet muhammad(pbuh). it is a fair and just war to ward off an act of aggression or to wipe out the oppressing dictatorships that prevent people form the freedom of belief, allah (the almighty) said: "there is no compulsion in religion – the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error"…….(al-bakkara ,v:256).

jihad is not meant to oblige people to profess islam, allah (the almighty) is the majestic and he is the king of all kings, he has called upon all mankind to worship him for their own benefit. quran is indeed his banquet on earth, whoever refuses allah's call, his deeds are not accepted by allah but he is never obliged to embrace islam.

the main pillar of communication between people is love and interest not hatred and obligation, it is the same situation with allah (the almighty) god of all beings. gustaf lobon mentions concerning this matter: "history has proven that religions can not be imposed by force, for when the christians have oppressed the arabs of andalusia , they preferred to be killed and banished rather than leaving islam. also islam was not spread by the sword, it spread by means of da'wa (inviting others to islam) alone. by da'wa alone the nations, who invaded the islamic countries, e.g.: (the turks and mongols" have embraced islam." (7)

jihad first started as a defense of the rights of the muhajreen (those who migrated from mekka to madina), those who were driven away unlawfully from their homes. allah (the almighty) said: "permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. and surely allah is able to assist them"……..(al-hajj ,v:39).

and it developed to be a defense for man wherever he is, and a freedom for humanity with all its races and colors from the shackles and dictatorships that holds it down, allah (the almighty) said: "o you who believe, fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you and let them find firmness in you. and know that allah is with those who keep their duty."………(at-tawba ,verse:123).

muslims used to sacrifice their selves and their money for the sake of spreading justice and giving the others the freedom of choice in ages that nothing were known about the political and religious freedom and did not admit the dignity of mankind. this is considered an international precedence which muslims ought to take pride in, for they did not fight for plundering others fortunes and stealing what's destined for them. muslims fought for the sake of spreading justice and freedom among people so that they can choose the right doctrine or to stick to their belief if they want, without fear or any supervision. throughout all ages mankind never knew such kind of war. the main purpose of war throughout history was material aspects or greed over others properties.

although the new age had provided some kind of freedom and protection under law and the sovereignty of countries and if the great countries had started thinking about what they call human rights and take such pretext to interfere in other countries affairs, but such matters never existed in the middle ages. that's why "jihad" took place at that time to save the freedom and dignity of mankind and to free human intellect from the guardianship of any tyrannical power that prevents man from following his religion without fear from any power in charge. 

if law could be able to apply justice, there would be no need for hijra "immigration" or for fighting. allah's messenger (pbuh) had pointed out for his companions what is better for them than jihad in the time of peace and serenity, which is praising allah (the almighty), "do you want me to tell you about the best that you can do and that allah (the almighty) loves best and that gets you the highest degrees and is better than spending gold and money for the sake of allah and better than meeting your enemy and fight with them. they said "o messenger of allah (pbuh), please do" he said "praising allah (the almighty)". but if law fails in applying justice, then fighting becomes legitimate for achieving justice till judgment day.

6-accepting others is the base of religious freedom in islam:

according to islamic jurisdiction people are free as regards their religion and belief. islam does not accept any kind of guardianship on people's minds and beliefs, there's no such thing as compulsion when it comes to religion. allah (the almighty) said "there is no compulsion in religion – the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error."..(al-bakkara ,v:256).

islam never accepts neither belief nor atheism as a result of compulsion. the true base in belief and in atheism is the complete freedom of choice with no fear or guardianship from anyone and on that same base everyone will be responsible for his choice in front of allah (the almighty).

here arises some inquiries about the "verse of the sword" and that we have to force others to embrace our belief. ibn katheer has responded to the idea that " the verses of peace" being abrogated by those of "the sword", for he said- as regards the verse "and if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in allah. surely he is the hearer, the knower."……(al-anfal ,v:61) -that this verse is abrogated by the verse: "fight those who do not believe in allah nor the last day". the same comment was given by ibn abbas, mojahid, zaid ibn aslam, ata' al_khurasani, ekrema, al-hassan and katadha.

that is a controversial opinion, because the verse of bara'a (immunity) includes the order to fight them if possible, but if the enemy is too enormous then peace can be made with them as this verse had provided. and as allah's messenger (pbuh) had done on the day of hudaibia……so there is no contradiction, no abrogation and no appropriation……and allah knows best.

7-the status of none muslims living in islamic countries:

the corner stones in islamic relations with non muslims who do not seek to fight with muslims are benevolence, justice, good relations and cooperation, whether they live inside or outside an islamic country. allah (the almighty) said " allâh does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes. verily, allâh loves those who deal with equity..…(al mumtahanah,v:8)

as for those who fight against da'wa, they are punished by the same act (war) whether they are non muslims, denouncers of islam or muslims who have fought against the legitimate islamic ruler. allah (the almighty) said: " the sacred month is for the sacred month, and for the prohibited things, there is the law of equality (qisâs). then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. and fear allâh, and know that allâh is with the pious believers who fear allâh much."……(al-bakkara ,v:194).

as for aggression of muslims against others non muslims, is totally prohibited, for allah (the almighty) said: "and fight in the way of allâh those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. truly, allâh likes not the transgressors."…….(al-bakkara ,v:190).

in the light of such sublime laws that have been given by the sharia' (islamic law), muslims have lived with other non muslims side by side. muslims and non muslims (christians & jews) have exchanged food, for allah (the almighty) had made it permissible for each of the two parties to eat the food of the other. allah (the almighty) said: "this day (all) good things are made lawful for you. and the food of those who have been given the book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them."………(al-mai'da ,v:5).

islam had prohibited muslims to insult people of other religions or insulting their religions or making them hear what they dislike. islam also had forbidden killing them and had allowed visiting them, asking them for help in need, holding agreements and trading with them…etc.

the testimony of orientalists as regards the tolerance of islam

many orientalists have praised the tolerance of islam, as zigrid hunka did when she mentioned the attitude of islam towards christians, saying "the arabic deeply rooted tolerance is the motive that made the conqueror of egypt amr ibn al-a'as avoid acts of plundering, stealing and destroying the conquered cities. on the contrary he made sure that egyptians practice their inherited culture as was mentioned in the document of surrender literally. this act shows the real dimension of such tolerance unknown to europe".

tolerance had started as early as the age of allah's messenger (pbuh) and such honorable islamic behavior continued throughout the ages of the kings of islam and their heirs. gustaf lobon, in his account on the results of the crusaders war, said "salah el-din did not want to act against the crusaders the same as they did, i.e. with cruelty. so he did not kill the christians, instead he just imposed on them a minimal tax, without taking anything of their properties." (10).

bernard shaw praises prophet muhammad’s courage

muhammad was not a terrorist in the eyes of almost western theorists and scientists including: bernard shaw, but he was a noble prophet and a great leader who understood the philosophy of life, and worked according to its law. the war according to him is a mean and not an aim, a theory that was adopted by bernard shaw. he represented his opinion about war in a dialogue - which he imagined - between jesus and muhammad (peace be upon them both):

-         in my religion killing is forbidden.

-         this is right when the matter is related to the personal disputes, but we have to kill those who are not capable of life.

-         who decide if we are capable of life or not? the high authorities, the emperors and all the religious men decide that i am not capable of life.

-         this was what happened to me, and i had to rescue myself and to keep myself out of sight, till i was able to convince a number of strong guys that their leaders had mistaken in judging me, then after that i returned to remove the herbs from the garden. 

-         i admire your courage and your practical wise, but i am not of the same kind.

-         do not admire such characteristics, i often feel ashamed of them. all the tribes' masters have a lot of them, and if i have any value then it is because of the spiritual highness that made me deserve being a messenger of god.

it is strongly recommended to those who accused prophet mohammad of being a terrorist to read bernard shaw's speech…

jesus' enemies tried to kill him but they failed, and they pretended that he was crucified, is it necessary that the fate of all the messengers is killing or crucifying as they pretended in order not to be terrorists. why do people stand beside the killer against the victim, isn't this the logic of the forest, in which the stronger prey on the weak? then what is the different between man's society and the forest's?.  

slandering muhammad means slandering jesus

this is the fact advocated by bernard shaw, mahmoud ali mourad says concerning this matter: " concerning ethics in general, shaw -in his desire to defend prophet muhammad from his critics and from the critics of his religion from the christians- reminded them in more than one subject of his writings, that muhammad admitted the message of jesus. moreover, he honored him with the same degree in which jesus honored johanna al- ma'amadan whom he was coeval with and predicted the coming prophet muhammad. shaw wanted to say - by emphasizing this fact - that if muhammad was an evil person or a deceiver or a liar as it is pretended by the majority of the christians under the leadership of the church, he would have attacked jesus instead of admitting his message; that means admitting his ethics. this admission should logically protect him from the evil of his enemies, thus slandering muhammad is an indirect slander to the ethics that he advocated, and they are the same values which are advocated by christianity".            

  

the cruciferous war proves islam tolerance

there is no doubt that some christians in the west thought that the victory of islam and the spread of its power is a danger threatening their interests, thus they announced their enmity towards it. their sin towards muhammad is similar to the jewish sin towards jesus, each one of them refused to admit his presence, so they intended to ignite the war between christianity and islam. one of the armenian poets said on the tongue of his king in a long poem, that means :

i will conquer allah's land from east to west and spread christianity by force…

jesus' throne gone over the skies, the one who precede him will win in the dispute day…

your friend is buried in the grave, thus he turned into dust between the bones

the aim of such poems is to ignite media wars. ibn hazm sent a contradictory poem as a reply to this poet.

the cruciferous wars were established, and the muslims were evacuated from andalusia because of the malice that was ignited by the cruciferous kings, for religious causes "the apparent causes", and political causes "the real causes", because there is no contradiction between the ability of coexists between christianity and islam as it is mentioned above. in the year 429 hijri, (the european occupied jerusalem after a siege that remained for a month and a half. moreover, they killed more than seventy thousand people, among them a group of scientists, worshipers and ascetics. in addition to this they collected the jews in a church and burned them). ghostaf lobo describes the catastrophes caused by the cruciferous: (the religious cruciferous cavalries were not satisfied with this, but they held a conference in which they decided to wipe out all the residents of jerusalem; muslims, jews and the apostates christians, who were about sixty thousand. they wiped out all of them within eight days; they even killed women, children and old men. then the cruciferous wanted to take rest from slaughtering all the people of jerusalem, thus they started to do all kinds of drinking and roistering).

muslims didn't involve in return in any  religious eradication with others. they lived side by side with all religions and sects living in the islamic countries. when they defeated the cruciferous power, they offered services and aids to all cruciferous who wanted to return back to their countries. in addition, salah al-din forgave their kings, and did not take revenge of their churches or from the christians who continued  living side by side with muslims in the islamic countries. in the contrary was the case with  the muslims of andalusia, when the christians captured the authority there; they burned mosques, destroyed the islamic traces and expatriated all muslims from the country.

the reasons behind the cruciferous wars

bernard shaw analyzes the reasons of the cruciferous wars; he thinks that "the christians' worship to the old testament, considering it a part and a parcel of their holy book, was the reason behind cultivating the military thought in the spirits of the western world. the old testament was also mainly involved in all the wars participated by the christian world, both parties in these wars, including the first great war , were holding a gun or a cannon or a bomb in one hand, and holding the old testament in the other hand. the removal of the idea of war from the minds of those people will not take place unless the old testament is descended from the skies and amended, moreover, to consider its actual reality and not considering it as a sent book with no distortions. "

the reader of this article will be surprised about some facts that he may hear for the first time. first of all, and before i elaborate in writing, i will quote what the christian british thinker thomas carlyle said:


 


"i think that the truth spreads itself out in any way, as the circumstances require. did you not see how christianity used the sword sometimes? it is enough to know what sharlman did to the saxon tribes. i do not pay attention to whether truth is spread by the sword, the tongue, or in any other way. let us leave the truth dominate by words, press or fighting…. let us leave it struggle and fight with its hands, legs, and nails because it will never be defeated. nothing will be defeated unless it deserves that..."


 


 


first of all:


 


is islam a religion of peace or war?


 


is the sword its only way to spread, or are there other ways based on persuasion and love?


 


these two questions carry the same meaning, is islam a religion of peace or war?


 


peace and islam are derived from one word; peace (assalaam) is one of the attributes of allah(the almighty).


 


 muslims try to come closer to allah - by calling him with this name - in praying and supplication, and they name their children with it (abdel salaam; the worshipper of assalaam).


 


and it is the word by which we end our prayers and return back into our daily life.


 


if "peace" is the most important thing for all human beings on earth, peace has a very great value in the life after. allah (the almighty) named heaven as "the house of peace" "dar assalaam". moreover, allah and the angels' greetings to the inhabitants of heaven are with peace; "assalaam".


 


a very nice introduction that makes us rise up this question:


 


if islam is against war, so why did prophet muhammad fight?


 


islam is for sure against war, but when war imposes itself upon you and there is no way out of it, you will have to eliminate evil and tyrannical forces. this is actually what jesus did although he said:


"39 do not resist an evil person. if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 and if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43 love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you,and pray for those who persecute you" (matthew 5: 39-44)


 


despite this peace that jesus used to teach his followers, when he felt that the jews and evil forces had turned against him he said: "but now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (luke 22:36)


 


this was his action even though his life as a prophet was three years only. so how would it be if it lasted longer than that?


he would have been engaged in violent wars to eliminate evil forces in this world just as the prophets of israel did before him. the natural disposition of human beings hates bloodshed, but upright people from the days of adam until today are few. good and evil were present inside the first humans the earth has known; didn't abel kill his brother for the sake of a woman? and when was that? it was when the number of human beings was no more than the number of one family.


 


the struggle between good and evil will continue as long as this earth remains.


 


 


the american historian and philosopher "well durant", recorded the number of years of the wars held by the humans on this earth; he found it: 3421 year, meanwhile the years of peace and armistice did not exceed 268 year.


did you see the extent of the human being's power of evil? it is a disaster if life will go on like this.

but why did muhammad (pbuh) banish the jews from madienah?? is not this also a kind of religious oppression.?


 


nice you have said "banishing the jews"! because this is what really happened. muhammad(pbuh) banished the jews from madienah instead of applying the rules of the quran or that of the old testament "al taurah" upon them ; he (pbuh) didn't kill them because of "treason" .raising of this event is for the behalf of muslims ,if this case was presented under the man-made laws that are applied in any country, then the judgment would have been severe, hard and also a shame: they would have been convicted with "high treason". and proofing conspiration with enemies against the country deserves the penalty of execution!.


 


jews were a part of the islamic society living in madienah, where they used to live with muslims as one family, the prophet (pbuh) gave them all rights of citizenship just the same given to every muslim. he did not kick them out, or burned them, or seized their properties as the church's popes or the european kings did. beside this, the prophet (pbuh) held with them a protection and safety convention, in which both parties (muslims & jews) were obliged to protect each other in case any harm or danger menaced them.


 


but the jews contacted secretly the enemies of the prophet (pbuh) and provoked them to fight against him, and offered them all forms of support.


 


here we get surprised by a very ridiculous and strange attitude, when we realize that the jews denied their religion- that contains the idea of unification and orders to fight polytheism and paganism exactly like islam- when the polytheists of makkah asked them about the religion of muhammad (pbuh); they said that their religion (that of the polytheists) is better than that of muhammad (pbuh)!!!


by this reply the jews preferred to worship the statues than believing in allah the unique the one!!!


this answer alone is enough to describe them as being betrayals and disbelievers!!


while the prophet (pbuh) was visiting them, their leaders thought and said :"you would never find the prophet in such  a condition - suitable for killing him; as being among a little number of men(his companions)- isn't there a man among you to go on the roof of that house in order to throw a big stone on him?!"


an ugly intrigue that trampled on all ethical values. where is the faith of keeping promises? where is value of welcoming the guests? where is respect for the neighborhood?


they wanted to make out of prophet muhammad (pbuh) another jesus. but the same way as allah have protected jesus from being crucified, he protected his prophet muhammad (pbuh) from being killed..


 


i'll here represent a comment said by a man that no one from the jews doubt about his faith and trust. he is the jewish professor " israel wilfinson", where in his book:" the jews' history in the arab world" ,page 123 he says: "the think that causes pain to any believer either he is a jew or a muslim  is that conversation held  between some jews and the polytheists of quraish, where those jews preferred quraish's religion on that of the leader of the islamic message."


then he says: " normally wars allow nations to use all means of ruses, lies, tricks and misinforming to defeat the enemies, but those jews had no right to get involved in such a raffish mistake, and never announce in front of quraish's leaders that their religion "in worshipping status) is better than the islamic unification. because the jews were holding the banner of monotheism in the world for centuries against  polytheism in the name of their old fathers. in addition to that, they faced uncountable catastrophes like killing, kicking out, expropriations, torturing, and oppressing because of their faith in one god during different eras (ages) in history….their duty was to sacrifice their lives to desert the polytheists.


but instead of that they took the side of the disbelievers and so they offended themselves before offending others, and showed themselves in a way that made even friends repulse from them…