Introduction to the Sword in Early Christianity and Islam

 Bold and large - New section

large space after - Mini section 

Conclusion - only for each section, the total conclusion will be in Bold.

Worldwide jihad and military actions against the West continue apace. No end appears in sight. What is needed at this time in our history – and worldwide histories – is clarity. One way to achieve it is to look back.

These historical narratives or storylines have similar patterns and some differences. The seeds of jihad have been planted in the past, and they have grown up. The seeds of military action against jihad have also grown up. If we never learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it. But even if history was violent, can we reform ourselves and move past violence?

For the first three centuries Christianity did not wage war or endorse a church-wide policy of the sword.[1] Then, with the imperial rule of later Roman emperors who became Christian, this policy changed. Did the later church wander off from its original path, or did the church follow it?

For 1,400 years Islam has used the sword, from almost the very beginning to now. Where did this religion get this sword policy? Did it wander off from the true path, or did those who led Islam follow it? How do we decide when a religion strays or remains true?

Jesus and Muhammad set the institutional genetic code for their respective religions. What were their policies regarding the sword?

This series, covering only the very origins of Christianity and Islam, separated from each other by six hundred years (Christianity in the first century, Islam in the seventh), attempts to answer these questions, in a comparative study:

What was Jesus’ policy on the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar?

Should the two realms be kept separate?

What did he think about death and taxes?

What did Jesus think of geopolitical holy sites like Jerusalem and its temple?

Did he really try to set up another theocracy in the holy land, but could not manage it?

What was his opinion about the Roman military when he met a centurion?

Are swords mentioned in the Gospels?

If so, how were they intended to be used?

What does Jesus’ statement mean: “I have not come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword”?

Was Jesus a pacifist?

Did he believe that one day the world system as he knew it would be peaceful, so no weapons would be needed?

Did he intend the world to be pacifist? Did he hope it would?

How did the early church view the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar?

Did the early Christians carry swords?

Should the government in their day be permitted to carry them, or should the early Christians preach against it? Did they?

Why were these early Christians persecuted so much?

Did they form militias to protect themselves?

Christianity grew out of Judaism, so how were the relations between Jews and Jesus and his earliest followers?

Did he and the early Christians persecute Jews? Were they anti-Semitic?

How were Jesus and some of his early followers martyred? Did they fight their attackers with swords?

Are Christians today permitted to carry swords (or modern weapons)?

Can weapons be used for self-defense?

Are there differences in the policies about the sword between the church as an institution and individual Christians living in society?

What should the church’s policy be on war and peace today?

Should the church today counsel the state to turn the other cheek?

Are Christians permitted to join the police force and the military?

If so, then how can they "love their enemies," but may have to kill some of them?

What should Christians do if the government refuses to protect them from violent thugs and militias?

For Islam’s part we attempt to answer these questions:

• Did Muhammad ever follow the path of peace, or did he only wage war all the time?
• What was Muhammad’s policy regarding the sword?
• What did he think about geopolitical holy sites like the Kabah shrine that housed the black stone in Mecca?
• Did he really have the option to follow two paths – peace or war? Or are both paths possible at the same time?
• Why are there so many verses about warfare in the Quran?[2]
• Are the war verses in the Quran historically and culturally restricted and therefore have an expiration date?
• Are there any peaceful verses?
• What does “jihad” really mean?
• What does the alternate word “qital” mean?
• Are there any rules that govern jihad in early Islam?
• If so, what are they?
• What did Muhammad think about death and taxes?
• What were Muhammad’s relations with the Jews like?
• After he died, how did the earliest Muslims follow his policies?
• Did they wage war?
• How did they follow the Quran and his example?
• How did early Islam define justice?
• What did they think about death and taxes?
• What is early Islam’s view of martyrdom?
• Can Islam reform? If so, how?

• Does it see even the need to do this, or does truth need fundamental reform?

Answering these questions by laying out the basic historical facts about the origins of these two religions will bring us clarity. Only when we see can we change.

THE MISSION OF JESUS AND THE SWORD

In our comparative study of the two religions of Christianity and Islam, we begin with the mission of Jesus, since he lived about 600 years before Muhammad. The next part in the series, the Mission of Muhammad, is designed to mirror this one you’re reading now. Look for any similarities (if they exist) and any opposites.

Jesus distinguished between two kingdoms: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar or the state. Of the kingdom of God, he further distinguished two godly kingdoms: a theocratic kingdom and a spiritual one.

Once we make the same distinctions, we can understand how the church as an institution and individual Christians fit into and solve the problem of wars and the military.

For Christianity, this article is the most important.

Transition from Old to New

To analyze the New Testament properly, it is imperative to understand the Old Testament. The later sacred text grows organically out of the older one, but also transforms some main themes. This revered ancient source teaches a theocracy, merging religion and politics. The Law of Moses was thundered from on high, shaking Mt. Sinai and echoing across the Middle East and eventually around the world.

The plan was for the ancient Hebrews, the people of God, to separate themselves from surrounding kingdoms and their pagan religions, and to worship the true and living God, following carefully prescribed laws. These laws were designed to guide them towards righteousness.

Further, God permitted ancient Israel to wage war on pagan inhabitants who were living in a small and specific land called Canaan, later renamed Israel. (He did not command his people to wage wars of worldwide conquests.) The Israelites alternated between success and failure in their wars. But this bedrock principle can be learned from these admittedly severe decrees: God is not opposed, in principle, to warfare, if necessary.

However, the people were unable or unwilling to follow God’s decrees, except a remnant. So God ordained a new path of following his righteousness, the gift of the Spirit. The prophet Joel predicted, as follows:

28 I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.[1] (Joel 2:28-29)

God expands the horizon to involve all people. The Spirit is not automatically put in everyone at birth, but anyone can receive the Spirit, if he asks God for him.

Jesus, a Jew, lived in a theocracy, though under Roman occupation, about four decades before the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 by the Roman general Titus, who later became the Emperor (ruled A.D. 79-81), son of the Emperor Vespasian (ruled A.D. 69-79).

The following questions from this short Bible survey are relevant to the New Testament.

Should the wars in the Old Testament be transferred forward to the ministry of Jesus and the church? If so, how? Would Jesus carry on the earthly theocratic kingdom established by God in ancient Israel? What about to secular governments? Should they wield the sword, when necessary, despite what pacifists may say?

A New Path

Jesus rose above his culture and trail-blazed a new path. In his teachings and pronouncements, he divides the kingdom of Caesar from the kingdom of God. Though the phrases “kingdom of heaven” or “kingdom of God” are used over a hundred times in the four Gospels, we look at only a sample that put the kingdom in action.

First, at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, he was tempted or tested (the Greek word can be translated either way) by Satan to take all of the kingdoms of the world. Luke 4:5-7 says:

5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 So if you worship me, it will be yours." 8 Jesus answered, "It is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’" (Luke 4:5-7; cf. Matt. 4:8-10; Deuteronomy 6:13)

God allowed Satan to lead Jesus up to a high place and showed him all the kingdoms of this world – their glory and political authority.[2] At this time in history, “kingdom” includes material resources, backed by a strong military. However, Jesus rebuked Satan and refused the offer.

Rather, Jesus is about to raise his followers’ vision to a spiritual transformation of the world, one soul at a time, without robbing people by bloodshed or killing them. Then, following his example, his disciples went north, south, east, and west, transforming the world only by preaching a simple message and by praying.

Next, Jesus was not part of the Jerusalem religious establishment. He often went to the city to attend the festivals (e.g. John 2:13; 5:1; 7:2; 10:22; 12:12). However, he spent most of his time in Galilee, in the north. So the Jerusalem establishment sent their agents to investigate him (Matt. 15:1; Mark 3:22; 7:1). Other times crowds of people from Judea, the countryside where Jerusalem presided, and the city itself would go out to listen to him (Matt 4:25; Mark 3:8; Luke 5:17; 6:17). Each time the establishment challenged him, his riposte overcame them. The crowds were amazed.

He was beginning a new movement, maybe at first a reformation of Judaism (Matt. 10:5), but he expanded his horizons to the entire world (Matt. 28:16-20). His kingdom would not be confined to national Israel.

The Temple

Nothing symbolized the Jerusalem religious establishment more clearly than the temple built by Herod who made it look beautiful. Devout Jews took pilgrimages there, and so did Jesus (John 5:1; 7:14; 12:1-12). The establishment, by order of the Torah (Exodus 30:13), implemented a temple tax on the people, which Jesus also paid, to fulfill legal obligations (Matt. 17:24-27).

However, he made a whip and cleared the temple of money-changers, conducting business transactions which he felt violated the temple’s spirit and purpose. In doing this he also fulfilled prophecy (Matt. 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46). He may have done it twice, if these passages represent two different times (John 2:13-16). In any case, the main point is that this clearing out by a whip was a temporary action, designed for a specific purpose, not a permanent policy or institution.

In fact, in John 2:19, after the religious establishment challenged his authority to apply the whip and turn over the tables, he answered enigmatically. “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” Then John clarifies the response: “But the temple he had spoken of was his body” (v. 21). So already he was spiritualizing the temple and pointing beyond the literal stones.

Another example about the temple shows that he predicted that one day soon the temple would be destroyed: “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down” (Matt. 24:2). With this outcome, how could Jesus tell his disciples to become attached to the temple and command them to take pilgrimages to it year after year? He did not raise a militia to fight for control over it. Rather, he foresaw that his mission and church would spill over – would have to spill over – the geo-political holy land and holy city and go out to the entire world.

Clearer still in Jesus’ ministry, he says that “one greater than the temple is here” (Matt 12:6) – meaning himself. He also told a Samaritan woman that it will not matter if people worship on Mt. Gerizim in Samaria or the temple mount in Jerusalem. God seeks those who worship in Spirit and truth, and do not focus on stones and sites (John 4:19-26). He rose above geopolitics.

As we shall see in a later article in this series, the early church will remember his teaching and outlook on the temple and apply it to the church, for ultimately the body of Christ is his church, and the church is referred to as a temple (1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 1 Peter 2:5), and so is our own body a temple (1 Corinthians 6:19).

Authority, Taxes, and the Kingdom of God

James and John were two of the three disciples who were the inner core around Jesus. They and Peter and Jesus spent the most time together. One day, as they were all heading toward Jerusalem where Jesus was destined to die, just as he predicted (Luke 9:22, 43-45; 12:50; 13:32-33; 18:31-34), James and John’s mother kneeled and asked him to ordain her two sons to sit on either side of Jesus, left and right, in his kingdom. She merged spiritual and moral authority with political authority. Jesus had to correct her. His father in heaven appoints who sit in the seats of prominence (Luke 20:23). Further, his kingdom is different from Caesar’s political kingdom. If God’s kingdom were enacted, it would overturn the worldly kingdom. The passage explains:

25 Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matt. 20:24-28)

In Jesus’ kingdom, leaders must not act like the worldly ones who hold authority over people’s heads like Damocles’ sword. Kingdom citizens serve.

Further, Jesus makes his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:18-44). As noted, he had predicted his own death, and resolutely set out for Jerusalem, in order to accomplish his mission to die a righteous death and then be bodily resurrected by God himself (Luke 9:51).

Once there in Jerusalem, the hostility of the Jewish leadership heats up against him. It is in this context that the teachers of the law and the chief priests keep a close watch on him to catch him in committing treason against Rome or in breaking the law – both Roman and Jewish – so they could arrest him and turn him over to “the power and authority of the governor” (Luke 20:20). Some leaders ask him whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. Apparently, they saw him as a political revolutionary who opposed Roman occupation. Would he endorse the taxation of his fellow Jews for the benefit of unclean Gentiles? He replied with famous words that are often quoted, though people may not know the exact reference and context. He speaks first in this passage.

24 "Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?" 25 "Caesar’s," they replied. He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s." 26 They were unable to trap him in what he said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent. (Luke 20:24-26; cf. Matt. 22:19-21; Mark 12:15-17)

The distinction between the kingdom of Caesar and the kingdom of God is clear. If Caesar asks for taxes, then keep your focus on the kingdom of God, but pay them. Incidentally, he even called a tax collector to become one of his disciples (Matt. 9:9) and befriended them and other sinners (Luke 5:29-32).

Finally, during his arrest, Jesus said to Pontius Pilate, a Roman authority:

My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place. (John 18:36)

Jesus says that establishing an earthly kingdom would necessarily involve fighting for it. However, Jesus was not setting up an earthly kingdom, so armed conflict was unnecessary.

Upon Jesus’ reply, Pilate exclaims that Jesus is a king. But Jesus spiritualizes the description of a king. Pilate speaks first in the following verse:

"You are a king, then!" Jesus answered: "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason, I was born, and for this I came into the world to testify to the truth. Everyone who is on the side of the truth listens to me." (John 18:37)

At the birth of Jesus, the wise men had called him “king of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2). In John 18:37 he says that the purpose of his birth – as a king – is to testify to the truth. That means his kingdom is heavenly and nonmaterial. He leads by the power of truth alone, not by worldly pomp and glory, followed by a mighty military.

Thus, Jesus lifts his vision, and that of his disciples and ours, to a heavenly kingdom. He separated off an earthly and theocratic kingdom – albeit established by God in ancient Israel – from a spiritual kingdom about to be established beyond the borders of Israel to the farthest parts of the globe, wherever the gospel of the kingdom is preached. He rose above his culture. In his ministry and actions he never carried a sword or raised a militia to attack opponents, for he intended only to fight spiritual beings and diseases, and to clarify the best possible image of God in kingdom theology.

If Jesus were to reestablish another religious-political theocracy in a small land, it would not have succeeded, for God ordained something new that relates to all peoples. Joel 2:28-29 prophesies, and Peter the lead Apostle applies the prophecy to the birth of the Church in Acts 2. Jesus did not reestablish the theocratic kingdom of Israel as if he were some sort of militaristic Son of David or in any other earthly way, though David was regarded as the most powerful and righteous king in Israel’s history. In Matt. 22:41-46 Jesus corrects the popular belief about the Son of David, saying that he is the Lord of David.

An Armed Militia?

In addition, Jesus had strong motives to establish a militia or secret society in order to protect himself or eliminate his enemies and critics or at least threaten them if they refused his message. Jerusalem and Israel could be violent.

For example, in Acts 5:33-37, the apostles are on trial before the Sanhedrin, not too long after the crucifixion. Gamaliel recounts two episodes about bandits or rebels. One was Theudas, who gathered about 400 men to lead a rebellion, but nothing came of it. The other was Judas the Galilean, who led a band in revolt, but he was killed, and his followers were scattered. According to Acts 21:38, an Egyptian started a revolt a while back and led four thousand terrorists or assassins (sicarii or dagger-men). Roman soldiers killed hundreds of them, and their movement came to nothing. In Acts 23:12-23:35, Paul was in Jerusalem under arrest, and some Jews formed a conspiracy to assassinate him.[3]

The final example illustrating the motive Jesus had to establish a militia or secret society says that in one case Herod intended to kill Jesus, but Jesus said it was not his time to die because he was outside Jerusalem (Luke 13:31-33). This is a little irony, for how could the holy city (Matt. 27:53) kill a holy man? Nonetheless, Jerusalem became famous for doing exactly that – “for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!” Jesus said. (Luke 13:33).

So it is not totally out of the question, culturally and hypothetically speaking, that Jesus could have formed his own society – secret or open – of thugs or assassins. But he chose a higher path.

Instead of using a militia of disciples, he rose above his culture and ushered in the new kingdom of God and told his disciples to do the same.

For instance, one of his disciples was called Simon the zealot (Luke 6:15). He probably got this nickname before he joined the new Jesus movement, but the name worked nicely to distinguish him from Simon Peter. The nickname “zealot” does not mean he was part of the revolutionary political party called the Zealots, for they appear after the outbreak of the Jewish revolt against Rome in A.D. 66. Rather, the nickname most likely refers to those who were zealous for the law (cf. Acts 21:20; 22:3, 19; 4 Maccabees 18:12). These religious zealots pushed all their energetic zeal to punish with violence any Jew who flouted Jewish law.[4]

But Jesus rejected this kind of violent punishment in the name of holiness and the law. He would teach Simon the zealot a new way.

Still another example of his teaching the disciples to rise above their culture: In Luke 9:52-56, Jesus and his disciples were on their way to Jerusalem and went through Samaria. Normally Jews went around the area in their pilgrimage to the capital because the Samaritans were considered half-breeds of ancient Assyrians and Israelites many centuries before, and their religion was irregular. He told the disciples to go on ahead and get things ready. But the Samaritans rejected them because they were on their way to Jerusalem.

James and John, two brothers and part of Jesus’ inner core, wanted to call down fire from heaven on Samaritans, reminiscent of Elijah who called down fire on the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:38), to retaliate. Jesus rebuked the two men. He intended to go on a new path, a higher way.

Finally, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus told his disciples:

43 You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." 44 But I tell you: Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. … (Matt. 5:43-45)

These verses overturn the popular idea everywhere that we should hate our enemy. Rather, we should pray for those who persecute us, not retaliate or attack them proportionately. This is the kingdom message.

Spiritual Warfare Only

If calling down fire from heaven, forming small and secret militias, hating one’s enemy, and exercising religious violence was not the way of the kingdom, then what was? How does it work itself out down here on earth?

Those questions bring us to the ministry and teaching of Jesus. As noted, he waged only spiritual warfare, not a military one.

Three examples of his spiritual warfare represent other passages in the Gospels.

First, one of the striking features of the Gospels is the presence of demonic beings that attack hapless people. The Gospels take them seriously, and so does Jesus (and so should we). He waged spiritual warfare against demons, wherever he went. After the great test (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13), many passages describe his confrontation with them (Matt. 12:28 and 43; Mark 1:23-26, 5:2, 7:25, 9:25-26; Luke 4:33, 8:29 and 55, 9:42, 11:24, and 13:11).

Next, he waged spiritual warfare against sickness. This passage, representing other summaries, encapsulates in a few words the healing ministry of Jesus in Israel:

30 Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them. 31 The people were amazed when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled made well, the lame walking and the blind seeing. And they praised the God of Israel. (Matt. 15:30-31)

Finally, he waged spiritual warfare against false and incomplete ideas by teaching true and full ones. In the Sermon on the Mount he explains what the kingdom of God really is. It is the “new thing” prophesied by Isaiah (42:9, 43:19, and 48:6). After he finished the long discourse, the people respond thus:

28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law. (Matt. 7:28-29; cf. 13:54 and 22:33)

These and many other passages in the Gospels demonstrate that Jesus is waging spiritual warfare, not a military one. He is about to call his church to do the same. He raises its vision higher than conquering earthly kingdoms and regions.

However, the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament are not different. The same God who purified the small and specific land of Canaan through Joshua and his successors by military warfare is now purifying the whole world through Jesus (his Hebrew name is Joshua) and his disciples by spiritual warfare, that is, only by preaching the gospel and only by praying, not by hitting the stubborn with swords.

There is one anecdote in the early church that may illustrate that the spiritual kingdom – as opposed to an earthly one – was taking hold in the church’s teaching. Jesus had (half) brothers (Matt. 12:46), one of whom was named Jude (Jude 1). Jude’s grandchildren were hauled before the emperor Domitian (ruled A.D. 81-96), and he drilled them with questions about the kingdom of Jesus. He asked them if they were descended from King David, and they said yes, but they were farmers who toiled the land. They showed him their calluses as signs of hard work with their hands.

When asked about Christ and His kingdom – what it was like, and where and when it shall appear – they explained that it was not of this world or anywhere on earth but angelic and in heaven and would be established at the end of the world ... On hearing this, Domitian found no fault with them, but despising them as beneath his notice let them go free and issued orders terminating the persecution of the Church.[5]

This story may not be true, but merely a pious fiction. However, even if it were a fiction, it does show that the teaching that kingdom of God was spiritual, not earthly, had taken root in the early church – Jesus’ “kingdom was not of this world,” but “from another place” (John 18:36).

Conclusion

Understanding the separate kingdoms of God and Caesar (the state) and the fact that Jesus never set out to rebuild the theocratic kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6-7) is essential for grasping all of the verses in the New Testament about the sword. If we merge the two realms, we will witness religious atrocities that the church committed sometimes (not always) in its history; we will see the church raise an army or militia to attack sinners and nonconformists, as the militaristic church defines them.

Jesus had a strong motive to protect himself from persecution. He could have formed a small, secret society to threaten or assassinate some opponents. Instead, he followed a new way. Such matters of the sword and punishment and retaliation would be placed in the hands of the state. In contrast, the message of Jesus wisely teaches the separation of the state and the church.

Thus, the mission of the church is to save souls, teach believers, and help the needy in practical ways. That is the essence of the kingdom message that Jesus preached and the early church took to heart. He set the institutional genetic code in his movement – away from wars and towards peace.

Equally important and implied in this article is that the secular state may not declare war in the name of God’s kingdom or the church. If the state declares war or imposes peace by law enforcement, it must do so in its own name using God-given reason and human rights. Members of the kingdom of God can counsel the state and police officials, but they are not obligated to listen. They can go their own way. The separation of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar is therefore of utmost importance.

An objector may ask: separating off the kingdom of God from the kingdom of Caesar is all well and good for the “heavenly minded,” but what about us here on earth? Wars and conflicts erupt. How do we handle them? What about the verses in the New Testament that talk about the sword? Or is the New Testament so spiritual that we should retreat from the world, not to mention from conflicts?

These are excellent questions, reflecting earth-bound realities. And these questions will be answered in the articles on Christianity.

But before then we next turn to Islam.

The Mission of Muhammad and the Sword

Early on in Muhammad’s call, he followed the path of peace, while he was defenseless in his hometown Mecca. As he preached monotheism to polytheists – those who believe in many gods – he suffered from persecution. But it was at this time that he also got the idea that he would fight back, with harm that equals harm, though not yet, because he had no military strength. Meanwhile, the opposition got so bad that he left and headed for the town of Medina, to the north.

Immediately after his move, he still followed the path of peace. He said to the inhabitants of Medina, “There is no compulsion in religion” (Quran 2:256).[1]

After this brief period of peace, he changed, following the Arab custom of conducting raids. His raiders gradually grew to an army. So he went down the path of jihad. In fact, in the ten years that he lived in Medina he sent out or went out on seventy-four raids and conflicts and battles and even assassinations, though we can discuss only a sample in this article.[2]

Exploring the transition from peace to war is important. If perhaps he had never begun his raids and abandoned his quest for the Kabah shrine back in Mecca, where Muslims to this day take a pilgrimage, then surely peace would have ensued between the two cities and two religions.

To understand these issues, we divide his life and policies in three stages: the path of peace in Mecca; the path to war; and jihad and qital in Medina.

Before we get to the three stages, we begin with basic textual facts.

Jihad and Qital: Defining the Terms[3]

The three-letter root of jihad is j-h-d. It can mean “holy war,” but it more generally signifies “struggling” or “striving.” In its various forms it appears about thirty-five times in the Quran: nine times in the Meccan chapters, and twenty-six times in the Medinan ones, nearly a triple increase.

While Muhammad lived in Mecca, he had no military, so the verses are peaceful. But when he migrated up to Medina, his raiders grew into a large army after a mere eight years. Chapter 9 of the Quran was one of the last chapters to be revealed, if not the last one. Jihad appears mostly in that chapter, in the context of war (ten times). This increase of the Medinan jihad verses reflects the rise of his military, though not every use of the word is in a military context.

But much more revealing is the root q-t-l (qital or qatala), the meaning of which is much more narrow or restricted: slaying, killing, warring, fighting, and slaughtering. It appears a total of about one hundred and twenty-three times in the Quran: thirty-four times in the Meccan chapters, most of which do not involve Muslims as such, since his community was small. But the contexts typically involve wars or conflicts of long ago or commands not to kill the innocent, like children. In the Medinan chapters q-t-l is found eighty-nine times, a huge increase over the Meccan ones. Chapters 2 and 3 – very long Medinan ones – of the Quran contain the most instances, at twenty-five, though Chapter 9 by itself comes in at ten. Of all the occurrences of q-t-l, not every context is about war, but many are.

The rise of the military explains the increase of the two roots.

Maybe we have been focusing only on jihad too much, when our attention should be directed at qital – or both at the same time.

Stage One: the Path of Peace in Mecca

One day early in Muhammad’s preaching career, he arrived at the Kabah, touched and kissed[4] the black stone, circled it, and prayed to Allah. As the Meccans observed his respectful devotion, which he performed habitually at the shrine, three men of reputation met him later and proposed that they should worship what he worships, and he should worship what they worship – a compromise. It is in this context that Muhammad receives the following revelation, in which Allah commands Muhammad to “say” to the Meccan polytheists, here called disbelievers:

1 Say [Prophet], “Disbelievers: 2 I do not worship what you worship, 3 you do not worship what I worship, 4 I will never worship what you worship, 5 you will never worship what I worship: 6 you have your religion and I have mine.”[5] (Quran 109:1-6)

Verse 6 says he does not give up his religion, and they do not give up theirs. Implied in the verse is the notion that he does not forcibly impose his own beliefs on his fellow Meccans – not yet. He was tolerant enough of polytheism at this early stage that he did not or could not attack it, though he preached against it.

Muhammad met with little success in the first five or so years of his career in his hometown because opposition to his message of monotheism against polytheism and the materialism of Meccan tradesmen was strong, though the opposition means he was hitting nerves. In the life of a prophet, this is success, regardless of the small number of converts.

Early biographer Ibn Ishaq (d. 767) reports:

... [The Meccans] had never known anything like the trouble they had to endure from this fellow [Muhammad]; he had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community, and cursed their gods.[6]

And the Quran says:

[Prophet], you can see the hostility on the faces of the disbelievers when Our messages are recited clearly to them: it is almost as if they are going to attack those who recite Our messages to them.[7] (Quran 22:72)

Despite his strong rhetoric and subsequent persecution, though, he still practiced nonviolence at this point. Strong rhetoric does not have to escalate to violence, at least not from the rhetorician. He does not wage military jihad against his fellow Meccans, for he is too weak.

Stage Two: the Path to War

Given this mounting persecution, a transition from peace and tolerance to physical retaliation – the second stage – can now be discerned.

In Quran 42, a Meccan chapter, is found a balancing act. The specific passage in vv. 36-43 transitions from forbearance to a policy of defending and requiting harm with another harm or recompensing evil for evil.

36 ... Far better and more lasting is what God will give to those who .... 37 forgive when they are angry ... 39 and defend themselves when they are oppressed. 40 Let harm be requited by an equal harm, though anyone who forgives and puts things right will have his reward from God Himself .... 41 There is no cause to act against anyone who defends himself after being wronged, 42 but there is cause to act against those who oppress people and transgress in the land against all justice – they will have agonizing punishment – 43 though if a person is patient and forgives, this is one of the greatest things. (Quran 42:36-43)

These verses first encourage forgiveness and patience. However, the text also permits Muhammad to retaliate for wrongs committed against him. Which path will he choose? And how does one measure the equality of harm or evil?

The following verse poses the same difficulty of measurement. The key words “proportionate,” “like,” “extent” are found in Quran 16, a Meccan chapter, which deals with responding to Meccan persecution:

126 If you [believers] have to respond to an attack, make your response proportionate, but it is best to stand fast.[8] (Quran 16:126)

So it is clear from 42:36-43 and 16:126 that Muhammad has two paths before him. One is to “forgive when [enemies] are angry” and become a “person who is patient and forgives.” The other is harm for harm and a proportional response to an attack.

At this stage he cannot take the second path because he has no militia and perhaps he simply chooses to be peaceful. But the seeds of jihad are planted. Eventually they will grow, and he will wander off from a strictly peaceful policy revealed to him in Mecca.

In any event, the persecution of Muhammad and his small Muslim community reached its height, even as far as nearly assassinating him. It was safer for him to leave Mecca. He does so in September 622.

At this point in time he is not aiming, as part of a master plan, to completely take over the Kabah shrine, which housed the black stone, around which he walked, just as the pagans did for centuries. All the two passages say so far is that he may retaliate if he wants. Rather than completely taking over the shrine, he simply wants access to it for a pilgrimage, which the Meccans had hindered, due to their persecution of him and threats against his life.

He is about to set out on a mission.

Muhammad’s policies undergo such a shift after his hijrah (emigration or flight) that Muslim scholars date their calendar according to it, usually abbreviated AH, from Latin “anno hegirae” or “in the year of the hijrah.”[9]

Stage Three: Jihad and Qital in Medina

This brings us to the third and final stage in Muhammad’s shift toward jihad and qital.

After he settled in at Medina, for a brief while he took the path of peace, as summed up in Quran 2:256: “There is no compulsion in religion.” It is not clear when this verse was written, but it most likely comes early in his life in Medina, since Chapter 2 of the Quran is an early one.[10] In any case Muslims today quote the verse to show that Islam is tolerant. But as we shall see, the picture is much more complicated.

Whenever the verse was written, something compelled him to abandon the path of peace and patience. Quran 42:36-43 and 16:126 had given him the option of forgiveness and steadfastness, which are the greater things, or the option of “let harm be requited by an equal harm.” He chose the second option: proportional attack.

Chapter 22 of the Quran was probably written partly in Mecca, and partly in Medina. The Medinan verses are very hard to distinguish from the earlier ones. Whenever it was written, its title is “the Pilgrimage,” showing that Muhammad was intent on carrying on this centuries-old ritual, begun by pagans, even if he has to fight for the shrine and purify it for monotheism. This verse gives the motive to fight:

25 As for those who disbelieve and bar others from God’s path and from the Sacred Mosque – which We [Allah] made for all people, residents and visitors alike – and who try to violate it with wrongdoing, We shall make them taste a painful punishment.[11] (Quran 22:25)

Muhammad goes on to say that Allah commanded Abraham to purify the Kabah (sacred mosque) for those who circle it (v. 26). Since Muhammad was a monotheist and claimed to stand in the tradition of Abraham, Muhammad is called to take up arms to purify the shrine with his own pilgrimage.

39 Those who have been attacked are permitted to take up arms because they have been wronged – God has the power to help them – 40 those who have been driven unjustly from their homes only for saying, 'Our Lord is God.' (Quran 22:39-40)

Chapter 47 of the Quran, which can be titled either “Muhammad” or “War,” was also written early, in the first year of Muhammad’s flight to Medina. He condemns the Meccans who expelled him from his hometown.

We [Allah] have destroyed many a town stronger than your own [Prophet] – [Mecca] the town which [chose to] expel you – and they had no one help them (Quran 47:13).[12]

And Allah tells him:

When you meet the disbelievers in battle, strike them in the neck. (Quran 47:4).

Now the way to wage war has been specified, striking them in the neck with a sword.[13]

Various Raids, A.D. 623

Muhammad either sent out or went out on seven raids for a full year in A.D. 623, specializing in the Meccan caravans. He is gradually raising the Arab custom of raids to a jihad that is already getting incorporated into his Quran.

First, in early 623, about 30 Muslim raiders went out, but no fighting took place, only a stare-down between them and the Meccan caravans. Second, about a month later, Muhammad sent out another expedition of 60-80 fighters, but again no fighting, except both sides shot arrows at each other, which marks the first shots fired in Islam. Third, the next month another dozen or two soldiers sallied out on the news of another caravan, but no contact was made. Muhammad himself led the next four raids, ranging from 60-200 soldiers, for the rest of 623, and the results were no contact, stare-downs and possible negotiations, or a failure to overtake the caravans.

Muhammad’s raids are not finished. In November 623 a small band of a half-dozen to a dozen Muslims without Muhammad got a lucky strike, capturing a small Meccan caravan of four men east of Mecca, but spilling blood in a sacred month. Tradition marks the one man’s death as the first killing in Islam. After the Muslims returned to their new city, the non-Muslim Medinans were understandably upset because for centuries the sacred months provided a welcome relief from the Arab custom of raiding against each other and caravans, fostering free trade for mercantile city-dwellers.

As it happens, the slain man, whose blood was shed, was a client of a tribal leader in Mecca, and the leader would have to retaliate, following the Arab custom of a blood-feud.[14]

These verses in Chapter 2 of the Quran speak of this skirmish. Of special note is the Kabah and how the Meccans barred Muhammad from it. Allah is addressing Muhammad:

216 Fighting [q-t-l] as been ordained for you, though it is hard for you. You may dislike something although it is good for you, or like something although it is bad for you: God knows and you do not. 217 They ask you [Prophet] about fighting [q-t-l] in the prohibited month. Say, “Fighting [q-t-l] in that month is a serious offence, but to bar others from God’s path, to disbelieve in Him, prevent access to the Sacred Mosque [Kabah], and expel people, are still greater offences in God’s eyes: persecution is worse than killing. They will not stop fighting you [believers] until they make you revoke your faith, if they can. If any of you revoke your faith and die as disbelievers, your deeds will come to nothing in this world and the Hereafter, and you will be inhabitants of the Fire, there to remain. 218 But those who have believed, migrated, and striven [j-h-d] for God’s cause, it is they who can look forward to God’s mercy: God is most forgiving and merciful.[15] (Quran 2:216-218, emphasis added)

Allah permits his messenger to fight the Meccans because they expelled him and his early disciples from their city and the sacred shrine. Qital and jihad cannot be distinguished. In this verse it does indeed involve killing because the historical context tells us blood was shed, and so does v. 217.[16]

The motive to fight appears earlier, in v. 214: “Who could be more wicked than those who prohibit the mention of God’s name in His places of worship and strive to have them deserted?” Next, one belief is also seen in v. 217, the key clause of which reads: “they will not stop fighting you until they make you revoke your faith.”

Actually, after Muhammad had departed from Mecca, they left him alone at this time.[17] They would have preferred it if he had not sent out raids against their caravans and instead let them go about their trading business. They could have their religion, while he could have his (Quran 109:6).

In any case, the upshot of this passage is that the messenger is getting a clearer idea that he should fight for access to the sacred shrine. But it is not yet evident from these early verses in Medina that he intended to conquer it. On that one point, he seems to be feeling his way.

Battle of Badr, A.D. 624

Muhammad knows of a large annual Meccan caravan with over a thousand camels laden with priceless merchandise passing along a major trade route near the Red Sea, heading for Damascus, Syria, but he fails to intercept it. But he knows that it is due to leave the north in January 624, so it would come on the same trade route two or more months later, so he makes preparation to try again. This would ease the financial hardship of his Muslim community and make him richer than he had ever been. Spies were common in Arabia, so it was not difficult to find out about his plan.

Mecca sent a large force of around 1,000 northward to meet the caravan. At the same time, Muhammad sets out with an army of a little over 300 raiders to reach the trade route tracing the Red Sea, about seventy to ninety miles west of Medina (two to three days away by foot, horse or camel). So the three bands converge at the wells of Badr, just off the trade route: the Meccan caravan from the north, Muhammad’s warriors from the east, and the Meccan army from the south. The Meccan army and the Muslims soldiers clash in mid-March 624, and the Muslims won against all odds.[18]

Muhammad’s military triumph is referenced in Chapter 8 of his Quran. Though the whole chapter is devoted to his victory, in which he says he is to get twenty percent and his warriors eighty (v. 41), we focus on two verses. They show Muhammad scolding his Muslim community for setting their sights too low. They were after the plunder only, whereas he was after both the polytheists and then the plunder from the huge caravan.

7 Remember how God promised you [believers] that one of the two enemy groups would fall to you: you wanted the unarmed group to be yours, but it was God’s will to establish the truth according to His Word and to finish off the disbelievers – 8 to prove the Truth to be true, and false to be false, much as the guilty might dislike it.[19] (Quran 8:7-8)

The “two enemy groups” refers to the Meccan army coming up from the south and the Meccan caravan coming down from the north. That Muhammad’s men desired in their own soul the wealthy spoils from the caravan without confronting the Meccan army is seen in the words, “You wanted the unarmed group to be yours.” Further, it was Allah’s will not only to establish the truth according to his word, the Quran, but also to “finish off the disbelievers.” With this victory at Badr, the Truth (the Quran, Muhammad, and Islam) is true, and the false is false.

Muhammad connects this battle with his desire to take a pilgrimage to the Kabah shrine. Quran 8:34 says:

34 Yet why should God not punish them when they debar people from the Sacred Mosque, although they are not its [rightful] guardians? (Quran 8:34).

But Allah’s victory at Badr is a sign to the Meccans that “they will be overcome and herded into Hell” (8:36). “God helped you at Badr when you were weak” (Quran 3:123).

Battle of Uhud, A.D. 625

The substantial Meccan riposte to Badr occurs at the Battle of Uhud in 625.[20] The Muslims lost this battle, though this loss did not cripple them materially, but only their prestige was tarnished, which was recovered with a strong retaliation. Muhammad sent his Muslims out the next day to chase down the Meccans, but nothing came of it.

Quran 3:121-129 and 137-175 deal with this battle, and a very important verse is 143, which says, “Before you encountered death, you were hoping for it.” The idea of hoping for death will inspire Muslims throughout their early history, as they too go out and conquer.[21] Further, it is about this time that Muhammad claims that the Kabah shrine is a special place of worship.

96 The first House [of worship] to be established for people was the one at [Mecca]. It is a blessed place; a source of guidance for all people; 97 there are clear signs in it; it is the place where Abraham stood to pray; who ever enters it is safe.[22] (Quran 3:96-97)

Muhammad accepts (or invents) the legend that Abraham went all the way to Mecca from Canaan, a journey of about a thousand miles. Abraham was the first monotheist, and Muhammad was also a monotheist. So by his logic the Kabah really belongs to him, not to pagans who worshiped many gods (cf. Quran 2:125-126; 8:34-36).

It is around this time that Muhammad acquires and nicknames these swords: "Pluck Out"; "Very Sharp"; "Death"; "Sharp"; "That is wont [apt] to sink" (presumably in human flesh); and "Having the Vertebrae of the Back." This last sword he collected as booty after his victory at the Battle of Badr.[23]

Battle of the Trench, A.D. 627

The next conflict that we have time to cover here is called the Battle of the Trench, which was fought in late March 627 and lasted a month.[24] Tradition says that Mecca mustered 10,000 soldiers, mostly Meccans with some allied tribes. Muhammad could muster only 3,000, mostly Medinan Muslims, and some allies. Given the disparity, Muhammad directed that he and his men dig a trench around the north and southwards along the western side of the oasis near Medina. This compensated for the Muslims not having a cavalry, since the Meccan cavalry could be used mainly to the north, for the south, east and west of Medina were surrounded by lava flows and other natural hindrances.

The two sides never clashed in pitched battle, so the Meccans withdrew, returning home. Quran 33:20-27 covers this battle, saying that confederates gathered against Muhammad, but Allah turned them back in their fury, to no advantage for them (see Part Five for a discussion).

It is not exactly clear when Chapter 5 of the Quran was written, but it was in the middle to late Medinan period, probably shortly after the Battle of the Trench.[25]

Whenever it was written, Muhammad reveals his hatred for the Meccans who commit a specific unjust act, in his eyes. Allah speaks to him:

2 ...“Do not let your hatred for the people who barred you from the Sacred Mosque induce you to break the law: help one another to do what is right and good; do not help one another towards sin and hostility”[26] (Quran 5:2, emphasis added).

Hatred is a strong motive to fight the Meccan pagans. Then he reveals a monetary motive to fight to get it back.

97 God has made the Ka‘ba [Kabah] – the Sacred House – a means of support for people” (Quran 5:97).

People from all over Arabia went to Mecca during seasons of pilgrimage, and this generated a lot of money.[27]

Maybe it is at this time that Muhammad went beyond his mere desire of a pilgrimage; he has to get the shrine back and control it. But this specific and far-reaching goal of control is still not clear.

Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, A.D. 628

During the time of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, named after a plain near Mecca, a treaty that Muhammad forged with the Meccans in 628, but which he claims they broke, he negotiated a pilgrimage a year later to the sacred shrine, for three days.[28]

Once there in 629, he was able to see his old city again and the black stone. He had predicted,

God has truly fulfilled His Messenger’s vision: ‘God willing you will most certainly enter the Sacred Mosque in safety’ ... (Quran 48:27).

Then he repeats the theme that Meccans had barred him from the Kabah:

They were the ones who disbelieved, who barred you from the Sacred Mosque, and who prevented the offering from reaching its place of sacrifice” (Quran 48:25).

Maybe it is for this deeper reason – barring him from the shrine – that peace between him and them was temporary.

In any case, while in Mecca on his pilgrimage he was able to find out how strong or weak the city was. Apparently he concluded it was weak, perhaps after all his raids on the Meccan caravans and his victory at the Trench.

Conquest of Mecca, A.D. 630

Muhammad was about to test his assessment of Mecca.

In January 630, he set out for Mecca with 10,000 men;[29] this large number testifies to the growing power of Islam – the same number that the Meccans had sent up to Medina, during the Trench. The night before the military conquerors entered Mecca, he ordered that they light 10,000 fires, to overwhelm the Meccans with fear. He told his jihadists (maybe it is here that his raids were elevated to jihad, but one cannot be sure) that a general amnesty would be followed because he wished to win the Meccans’ approval and their heart for Islam. Only a few would be hunted down, even if they clung to the curtain of the Kabah shrine.

The next day, the Muslims marched into Mecca in four columns from four directions, but not entirely without bloodshed. Muhammad’s military commander Khalid al-Walid, nicknamed the “Sword of Allah”[30] because of his violence, encountered some resistance. But his forces smashed it, killing twenty-four Meccans and four of their allies.[31] In a short time, they smashed the idols around the Kabah, but apparently sparing a picture of Jesus and his mother. Muhammad allowed the same clans to watch over it.

Muhammad finally possessed the sacred black stone for his monotheistic religion, a stone where pagans worshipped, but that originally belonged to Abraham – or so goes the legend that the Quran accepts or invents. The fifth of the Five Pillars of Islam is to take a pilgrimage to this sacred stone and walk around it.

Mecca submitted to Allah and his messenger. Now he would be able ultimately to control the money from the pilgrims. Mission accomplished (gradually).

Battle of Hunain, A.D. 630

Muhammad did not stop at the conquest, because shortly after the victory over Mecca, an enemy coalition of tribes from the east was determined to attack Mecca when they perceived it was weak. Muhammad moved swiftly against them, able to field the 10,000 jihadists, plus 2,000 Meccans who converted to Muhammad’s religion. The enemy could field only about 4,500, but they followed the practice of bringing their wives and children with them, stationing them in the background, in order to make sure the soldiers fought harder.

The two opposing sides met in a valley named Hunain (or Hunayn), near Mecca. At first, Muhammad’s enemy was on the path of victory, but he stood firm and cried out to his men that he is a prophet of God and not an imposter. This rallied the troops, and the Muslims won the day. The diehard tribesmen fled to the fortified city of Taif. He besieged the city for fifteen days and eventually prevailed. Then he turned his attention to dividing up the spoils.

This passage in the Quran speaks of this battle is 9:25-26, and it is designed to remind the Muslims of God’s help in the battle.

25 God has helped you [believers] on many battlefields, even on the day of the Battle of Hunayn. You were well pleased with your large numbers, but they were of no use to you: the earth seemed to close in on you despite the spaciousness, and you turned tail and fled. 26 Then God sent His calm down to His Messenger and the believers, and He sent down invisible forces. He punished the disbelievers – this is what the disbelievers deserve[32] .... (Quran 9:25-26)

Chapter 9 is one of the last chapters of the Quran to be written, if not the last one. Since it is late, many Muslim scholars conclude it supersedes or cancels other earlier verses that describe peace. In fact, the same is true of Medinan chapters that describe jihad. They abrogate the earlier peaceful Meccan chapters and even the peaceful early Medinan verse in Quran 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion.” In any case, the last sentence in v. 26 promises punishment for the unbelievers or infidels.

Tabuk Campaign, A.D. 630

Finally, having subdued the Meccan pagans, Muhammad led, in late 630, a large army of 20,000 to 30,000 jihadists to Tabuk, today in northern Saudi Arabia.[33] This is a huge number and reflects the enthusiasm of the Arabs for his earlier conquests. It was time to elevate his mission beyond conquering Mecca and the black stone and look toward the Christians. He believed that the Byzantines were mustering an army of 200,000 soldiers to launch an assault on Islam.[34] But the Byzantine army never mustered out.

Along the way up there and back again, however, Muhammad subdued various Christian and Jewish Arab tribes and required them to pay tribute to him.

Quran 9:29 explains to Muhammad’s soldiers why and how they must fight Christians and Jews as they set out for Tabuk.

29 Fight [q-t-l] against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.[35] (Quran 9:29)

Backed by a large army, Islam gives three alternatives to People of the Book or Scripture (the Bible): fight and die in warfare; do not fight, but convert to Islam; or do not fight, but keep their religion and become subjugated, paying a special tax for living under Islam. The word “willing submission” can also be translated as “humiliation,” “utterly humbled,” “contemptible” or “vile.” It can mean “small” as opposed to “great.”[36]

In any case, early Islam after Muhammad’s death implemented this policy of options, so it is important to understand this verse, which will be repeated in later articles in this series.

Reversal of Fortunes

Now strong militarily, Muhammad was finally able to bar the Meccan pagans from their sacred shrine or mosque in Mecca.

28 Believers, those who ascribe partners to God are truly unclean: do not let them come near the Sacred Mosque after this year. (Quran 9:28; cf. v. 18).

That verse appears just before the famous one against the People of the Book. However, “those who ascribe partners” to Allah are polytheists. The wheel of Islamic justice has come full circle. This is a complete reversal of outcomes.

Muhammad now bars the pagans from their sacred stone and mosque, just as they had barred him. The door is shut.

It turns out that the pagans cannot have their religion, while he has his, contrary to Quran 109:6.

And it turns out that there really is compulsion in religion, contrary to Quran 2:256.

The sword made all the difference. The final part of his gradual and incremental mission was accomplished.

Conclusion

Muhammad peacefully started out on his mission while he resided in Mecca, because perhaps he had no plans for jihad at all. He could not see that far into the future. But it is certain he had no power to wage jihad.

Quran 42:36-43 and 16:126 gives him the inkling that it is possible, if not to take the Kabah shrine, then to punish anyone who blocked his path back to it, including his own pilgrimage to the Kabah, which housed the black stone in Mecca. But those verses also give him the option to choose forgiveness and patience.

Arriving in Medina, he had two paths before him: the one of peace and the other of jihad. In Medina he may have trodden down the first one for a brief time. But he wanted to get back to the main place of pilgrimage – the Kabah. He was chased away from it. In his mind this was unjust.

The shrine generated a lot of money as well. He opted to follow his own culture and conducted small raids on caravans, specializing in Meccan ones. After military success piled up, he collected a lot of spoils of battle, so more people, ready for battle and spoils, joined his new community.

In history nothing is inevitable, as the saying goes. We can only speculate as to how Islam would have evolved differently if Muhammad had relinquished his raids and subsequent wars and even the Kabah itself and instead simply preached his message and treated his mosque in Medina as extra-special.

It is a pity he did not say, “Something greater than the pagan black stone is here: Islam. If the pagans want to keep their shrine, they may do so in peace. I have a new mosque in Medina! Come to it!”

If people did not wish to join Islam, then they would be free to go their own way because “there is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). “You have your religion and I have mine” (109:6).

He would keep persuading the pagans, with words alone and without the sword, how special his mosque was in his new city of Medina, where Islam could flourish and Muslims could visit on a pilgrimage.

To the Jews and Christians he could have said: “Jews! Christians! You are People of the Book! You will not be attacked and forced to convert or die or pay a submission tax! ‘There is no compulsion in religion.’”

Those options of peace were possible for the messenger of Islam. Quran 2:256 says so. Surely peace and tolerance would have prevailed between the Mecca and Medina, and Islam and other religions – even today.

But those hypotheticals are contrary to fact. In early 630 he conquered Mecca. The Meccans had barred him from the shrine, and now he bars them. A 180-degrees reversal of fortunes.

And in late 630 Christians and Jews were attacked. They had to pay a tax or convert or die.

Mission accomplished (though gradually).

Choosing the path of jihad and qital, Muhammad thus set the institutional genetic code for his later community to follow. He declared jihad and qital and waged them in the name of Allah and Islam. So did the first four caliphs and later ones. Jihad and qital were the means to accomplish his mission of religious control and conversion, and they were the same means for later Muslims too.

How does the implementation of the rules of jihad and qital in Quran match up with this brief survey of Muhammad’s life? This question will be answered in the next articles on Islam.

But first we return to Christianity and the Gospels in our comparative study of the two religions.

The contrast between them will be clear

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1] All translations in this article are those of MAS Abdel Haleem, The Quran, rev. ed. (Oxford UP, 2010), unless otherwise noted. Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation of the verse, in the Meaning of the Holy Quran, 11th ed., (Belleville, Maryland: Amana, 2004), reads, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” Caution must be used with these two translators. Sometimes they omit or “soft-sell” the harsher aspects of the Quran. It is important to note that some chapters in the Quran were revealed in Mecca, while others were received in Medina. This difference is important because the Meccan chapters are peaceful because Muhammad had no military, large or small. The Medinan chapters teach jihad and conflict because he managed to recruit soldiers and expand his military. If readers would like to see various translation of the Quran, they may go to the website quranbrowser.com and type in the references.

[2] W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina (New York: Oxford UP, 1956), 2 and 339-43. The latter pages are made up of a table that tracks these raids or jihad. In addition to the previous book, these sources have been consulted for this article. Primary or early sources: Muhammd Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume (Oxford UP, 1955); Abu Jafar Muhammad b. Jarir Tabari, Muhammad at Mecca, vol. 6, trans. W. Montgomery Watt and M. V. McDonald (Albany: SUNYP, 1988); idem, The Foundation of the Community, vol. 7, trans. M. V. McDonald and annotated by W. Montgomery Watt (Albany: SUNYP, 1987); idem, The Victory of Islam, vol. 8, trans. Michael Fishbein, (Albany: SUNYP, 1997); idem, The Last Years of the Prophet, vol. 9, trans. Ismail K. Poonawala (Albany: SUNYP, 1990 ). Tabari (d. 923) and Ibn Ishaq (d. 767) use a variety of sources, some reliable, others not. They may also inflate numbers or incorporate miraculous elements. So they must be used with caution. However, they are still invaluable for historians today. Secondary or modern sources: Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, (New York: OUP, 1953); idem, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, (New York: Oxford UP, 1961); John Glubb, The Life and Times of Muhammad, (New York: Cooper Square P, 2001, 1970); Muhammad H. Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, 8th ed., trans. Ismail Raji A. al-Faruqi, (Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust, 2002, 1935); Hajjah Amina Adil, Muhammad: the Messenger of Islam, His Life and Prophecy, (Washington: Islamic Supreme Council of America, 2002); and Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar: Biography of the Noble Prophet, (Houston: Dar-us-Salam, 1996, 1979). All of these biographers write favorably of Muhammad.

[3] We should not fall into the trap of believing that the fewer the verses, the less significant the theme. All it would take is one important verse calling for jihad, and then the command to wage war would be established. These are the verses that have j-h-d in them, whether verb or noun forms. They are divided by Meccan and Medinan chapters. Meccan chapters: 6:109 (most earnest); 16:38 (most earnest), 110 (this one v. may be Medinan); 22:78 (ch. 22 may be part Meccan, part Medinan) 25:52; 29:6, 8; 31:15; 35:42 (most earnest). Medinan chapters: 2:178; 3:142; 4:95; 5:35, 53, 54; 8:72, 74, 75; 9:16, 19, 20, 24, 41, 44, 73, 79, 81, 86, 88; 24:53; 47:31; 49:15; 60:1; 61:11; 66:9.

Next, these verses have qital (noun) or qatala (verb) in them: Meccan chapters: 6:137, 140, 151; 7:127, 141, 150; 12:9, 10; 17:31, 33; 28:9, 19, 20, 33; 18:74; 20:40; 22:39, 58; 28:15, 19, 33; 25:68; 26:14; 29:24; 40:25, 26, 28; 51:10; 73:20; 74:19, 20; 80:17; 81:9; 85:4. Medinan chapters: 2:54, 61, 85, 72, 87, 91, 154, 178, 190, 191, 193, 216, 217, 244, 246, 251, 253; 3:13, 21, 111, 112, 121, 144, 146, 154, 156, 157, 158, 167, 168, 169, 181, 183, 195; 4:29, 66, 74, 75, 76, 77, 84, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 155, 157; 5:24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 70, 95; 8:16, 17, 30, 39, 65; 9:5, 12, 13, 14, 29, 30, 36, 83, 111, 123; 33:16, 20, 25, 26, 61; 47:4, 20; 48:16, 28; 49:9; 57:10; 59:4, 11, 12; 60:8, 9, 12; 61:4, 63:4. Hannah E. Kassis, A Concordance of the Quran (Los Angeles: UCP, 1982), 587-88; 928-33.

[4] Muhammad Bukhari, Pilgrimage, 2.1597 and 1605, in Sahih Bukari, 9 vols. trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Riyadh: Darussalam, 1997), records sound traditions that say that Muhammad touched and kissed the black stone. Umar was a close companion to Muhammad, and the second caliph (successor). In what follows, he does not like the idea that Muhammad kissed it and mildly objects to doing it himself, but does anyway. Umar implies that his prophet was excessive in his devotion to it.

Narrated Abis bin Rabia: Umar came near the black stone and kissed it and said "No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit anyone nor harm anyone. Had I not seen Allah's apostle kissing you, I would not have kissed you." (2.1597, with small mechanical edits)

Narrated Zaid bin Aslam from his father who said: "Umar bin al-Khattab addressed the corner (black stone) saying, 'By Allah! I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit nor harm. Had I not seen the prophet touching (and kissing) you, I would never have touched (and kissed) you.' Then he kissed it and said, 'There is no reason for us to do [this] except that we wanted to show off before the pagans, and now Allah has destroyed them.' Umar added, '(Nevertheless), the prophet did that and we do not want to leave it.'” (2.1605, with small edits; the parenthetical notes are the translator’s; the word in brackets is added)

Bukhari (d. 870) was a hadith collector. The hadith are the traditions and reports about Muhammad outside of the Quran and come second to the Quran in sacredness. Bukhari’s collection is considered reliable and sound. Ibn Rushd (d. 1198) was a jurist and legal scholar who wrote a very helpful summary of legal opinions on a wide range of topics. He writes a section on pilgrimage and circling the black stone: “The majority [of legal interpreters] agree unanimously that the form of circumambulation [circling around], whether obligatory or recommended, is that the worshipper begin at al-hajar al-aswad (the Black Stone). If he is able to kiss the stone he should do so, or touch it with his hand if possible and then kiss it” (The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer, vol. 1, trans. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyaazee [London: Garnet, 1994], 401). The hadith are searchable online at the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement, under the aegis of the University of Southern California.

[5] Abdel Haleem, The Quran; the bracketed insertion is his.

[6] Ibn Ishaq 130-31.

[7] Abdel Haleem, The Quran; the bracketed insertion is his.

[8] Ibid. The bracketed insertion is Abdel Haleem’s.

[9] For an account of the Hijrah, see Ibn Ishaq 221-3; Tabari 6.145-52; Watt, Mecca 149-50; Glubb 151-65; Haykal 163-72; Adil 274-82; and al-Mubarakpuri 168-180; 202-10.

[10] Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, in The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 1, 4th ed., trans. Ch. Muhammad Akbar, ed. A. A. Kamal, (Lahore, Pakistan: Islamic Publications, 2003), 43-47 says Chapter 2 is early. And Quran 2:256 comes in the context of vv. 243-255, which speaks of Allah’s sovereignty, yet he does not force religion on people (note 284). Clearly the verse is intended to proclaim the tolerance of Islam. But as we shall see shortly, the picture is much more complicated. His commentary can be read online at englishtafsir.com.

[11] The word in brackets has been added.

[12] The first word in brackets is added, the others have been inserted by the translator.

[13] This hadith says in regard to Muhammad’s war on pagans in light of Quran 22:39-40: “Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger said: Allah said: ‘I will declare war against him who shows hostility to a pious worship of Mine’” (Bukhari, Softening Hearts, 8.6502).

[14] For an account of the raids, see Ibn Ishaq 281-89; Tabari 7.10-23 / 1265-79 (see also the translator’s Foreword xix-xx); Watt, Muhammad: Prophet, 102-111; idem, Medina, 2-9; Glubb 169-78; Haykal 200-06; Adil 288-93; and Mubarakpuri 202-09. This last book says with surprising objectivity that Muhammad wanted to bring the commercial routes under his control (201).

[15] The words in brackets, except “Prophet” and “believers,” are added by me. This hadith, in support of early fighting or at any time, says:

Allah's Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.” (Bukhari, Belief; 1.25; parenthetical notes are the translator’s).

[16] Abdul Mannan Omar, Dictionary of the Holy Quran (Hockessin, Delaware: 2003, 2004), 105-06; 442-43.

[17] Mubarakpuri, Sealed Nectar, 199-202, mentions a letter from Mecca provoking Medinan polytheists to attack Muhammad, but he managed to talk them out of it. How serious, then, could the threat and Muhammad’s helplessness be? Taunts and threats were part of seventh-century Arab culture. Mubarakpuri too falls into the trap of believing that Mecca was constantly out to attack or threaten an attack on Muhammad in Medina, but the Meccans never got close to the city. Further, Isma’il R. al-Faruqi and Lois Lamya’al Faruqi, in The Cultural Atlas of Islam, (New York: Macmillan, 1986), 134, assert that the Meccan caravans “passed through” Medina. But this is wrong on its face because Muhammad was attacking the caravans. So why would the Meccans pass through his new city? In contrast, reputable and highly regarded Islamologist Watt, Medina, 2, paints a more accurate picture of these early raids, saying that the Muslims took the offensive, long distances from Medina: “The chief point to notice is that the Muslims took the offensive. With one exception the seven expeditions were directed against Meccan caravans. The geographical situation lent itself to this. Caravans from Mecca to Syria had to pass between Medina and the coast. Even if they kept as close to the Red Sea as possible, they had to pass within about eighty miles of Medina, and, while at this distance from the enemy base, would be twice as far from their own base.”

[18]For an account of the Battle of Badr (AD 624), see Ibn Ishaq 289-339; Tabari 7.26-75; Watt, Medina, 10-20; idem, Muhammad: Prophet, 102-111; 119-34; Glubb 169-200; Haykal 16-41; al-Mubarakpuri 210-33; and Adil 295-304.

[19] The word in brackets is added by Abdel Haleem.

[20] For more on the Battle of Uhud and the raids and their aftermath, see Ibn Ishaq, 370-426; Tabari, 7.89-92 and 105-38; Watt, Muhammad: Prophet, 135-48; idem, Medina, 21-29; Glubb 191-221; Haykal 252-84; Adil 320-55; and al-Mubarakpuri 245-95.

[21] Quran 3:121-129 and 137-175 deal with the Battle of Uhud, but the verses are too many to analyze here in this survey.

[22] The first words in brackets are those of the translator; the second word is mine.

[23] Tabari 9.153-55.

[24] For more on the Battle of the Trench, see Ibn Ishaq 449-82; Tabari 8.5-27; Watt, Muhammad: Prophet, 160-71; idem, Medina, 29-39; Glubb, 213-52; Haykal, 299-316; Adil, 372-98; and Mubarakpuri, 296-329.

[25] Maududi, the Meaning of the Quran, vol. 1, 414-416. His commentary can be read online at englishtafsir.com.

[26] The word “hatred” is sh-n-’ (cf. Quran 5:8 and 108:3); and in addition to Abdel Haleem’s translation in Quran 5:2, the Arabic noun can also mean “insult,” “adversity,” “enmity,” “hostility,” “malice,” “abhorrence”; the verb can mean “to loathe.” (Omar, Dictionary 298-99). The context of the verse is about going to the sacred shrine without violating the sacred month; the pilgrims are not allowed to kill game. When they have completed the rites of pilgrimage, they may then hunt. Whatever the case, hatred is a strong word.

[27] The word in brackets is added. In Abdel Haleem’s footnote to this verse, he says that during the sacred months ordinary Muslims could go to Mecca and take advantage of the many pilgrims who traveled there, in order to sell them their goods and wares (note b).

[28] For more on the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and raids, see Ibn Ishaq 499-510; Tabari 8.67-71; Watt, Muhammad: Prophet, 176-203; idem, Medina, 40-64; Glubb 255-87; Haykal 317-94; Adil 399-422; and Mubarakpuri 339-48; 364-65.

[29] For more the Conquest of Mecca and the subsequent Battle of Hunayn, next, see Ibn Ishaq 530-602 / 788-893; Tabari 8.133-87, and 9.1-39; Watt, Muhammad: Prophet, 203-214; idem, Muhammad at Medina, 65-77; Glubb, 275-346; Haykal, 360-428; Adil, 472-519; and Mubarakpuri, 380-416.

[30] Watt, Medina 362.

[31] This contradicts Karen Armstrong, “Is Islam Violent?” in Taking Back Islam: American Muslims Reclaim their Faith, ed. Michael Wolfe, (Rodale, 2002), 28, who says that Mecca was taken without bloodshed.

[32] The word in brackets was added by Abdel Haleem.

[33] For more on this timeframe, see Ibn Ishaq 602-624; Tabari 9.47-62; Watt, Muhammad: Prophet, 212-28; idem, Medina, 65-77; 139-42; Glubb 333-62; Haykal 443-74; Adil 520-45; and al-Mubarakpuri 417-40.

[34] Maududi, the Meaning of the Quran, vol. 2, 164, says 200,000 Byzantines never materialized, and he calls the Byzantine army’s no-show “a moral victory.” He then says that Muhammad presses home his moral victory and makes northern Christian Arab tribes pay the jizyah. His commentary can be read online at englishtafsir.com.

[35] Hilali and Khan’s translation, the Noble Quran, (Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996, 2002); parenthetical notes are theirs. Mine are in brackets.

[36] For “humiliation,” “contempt” or “utterly humbled,” see Quran 7:13, 119; 12:32; 27:37; for “small,” see 2:82; 9:121; 10:61; 17:24; 18:49; 34:3; 54:53. The root is s-gh-r. For “vile,” see Omar, Dictionary, 316.

GOSPELS AND THE SWORD

According to the Gospels, is it possible to be honored by Jesus and other Gospel figures and be a weapon-carrying soldier or law enforcement officer, at the same time? Do the Gospels approve of soldiers and officers of the State? Do the Gospels condemn the military? If not, may individual Christians serve in law enforcement and the military? Were individual members of the early Jesus movement, which soon evolved into the church, permitted to carry swords for self-defense? Do the Gospels encourage the church as an institution to form militias and armies to wage war against its enemies or stamp out heresies?

To answer these questions, we look at three episodes in the Gospels: John the Baptist and some soldiers; Jesus and a centurion; and two swords during Jesus’ arrest.

John the Baptist and Soldiers

According to the New Testament, John the Baptist, coming in the spirit of Elijah, was the forerunner of Christ. John preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. One day, during the short life of John the Baptist – short because Herod the tetrarch beheaded him (Matt. 14:1-12 and Mark 6:14-29) – some soldiers, likely Jews serving the government in Jerusalem, traveled out to the Jordan River to see him. While they were listening, he told a large crowd that they must bring forth fruit (good character and actions) worthy of repentance, not just get wet at their baptism (Luke 3:8). After different classes of people ask what fruit they must produce, the soldiers ask a pertinent question about their own careers.

14 Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely – be content with your pay."[1] (Luke 3:14)

It seems, then, that these soldiers were deeper than curiosity seekers. They asked about repentance. It is important to note what John says and does not say. He tells them to follow after justice. Apparently, it was common knowledge that soldiers generally used their power and authority to intimidate people and extort money. He also tells them to be content with their wages; logically, this implies that they may remain in the military as soldiers. That is what he said. But what he does not say is that they should quit the army. The silence is significant. John never denounced them as soldiers, exactly at the moment when the fiery preacher could have done so. One of the requirements of their repentance did not involve walking away from their career. They could repent of their sins and belong to the military. They did not have to repent for carrying weapons or belonging to the military. This also implies, historically, that they could use their weapons, if necessary.

However, sometimes rulers in the Roman empire and at other times in history, even today, act unjustly. John was beheaded by Herod the tetrarch because the prophet had denounced the petty king’s marriage as unlawful (Leviticus 18:16). Herod had married his brother’s wife while the brother was still alive. In anger towards John, Herodias, the wife in question, asked for John’s head, and Herod granted it – reluctantly because the people regarded John as a prophet and Herod himself may have been interested in the ascetic’s teaching (Matt. 14:1-12). John did not die because he had swung a sword at Herod or raised a militia against him. This is a case in which a nonviolent, innocent, and righteous preacher was wrongly executed for telling the truth. He was a true martyr, the first one in the Gospels and Acts.

Jesus and a Centurion

Centurions in Israel were mostly recruited from outside Galilee, not necessarily Rome or Italy, but from such regions as Lebanon and Syria. Centurions were the backbone of the army, keeping the peace and issuing executive orders. They commanded a lot of power. What happens when a centurion and Jesus meet? Matt. 8:5-13 reads:

5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering." 7 Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him." 8 The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." 10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour. (Matt. 8:5-13; see Luke 7:1-10)

We can learn at least four lessons from this episode.

First, the centurion was kindhearted, for he cared for one of his servants. The centurion asking help for a servant indicates desperation as if he were a moral father, perhaps. He certainly was a caring head of household and commander. Also, the parallel passage in Luke says that some elders of the Jews encouraged Jesus to help the soldier, pleading, "This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue" (Luke 7:4-5). What is the timeless truth drawn from this first point? It is fitting for a soldier to be helpful to a nation that he enters. The (local) elders of the Jews praise this gentile who built their synagogue. It is possible to be godly and to serve in the military, wielding a sword.

Second, the centurion shows some humility. He tells the Lord that he is not worthy of Jesus coming under his roof. This wins the heart of Jesus, catching his attention. Such humility is doubly important for persons in command. Sometimes power corrupts good character, causing us to become arrogant.

Third, the centurion understands the chain of command. If he tells a soldier to do something, then the soldier does it. In a similar, but spiritual way, if Jesus tells the disease to depart, it will obey. The centurion recognizes that Jesus has spiritual authority that transcends time and place. Jesus does not have to be on location to heal, so the centurion wisely discerns. This is truly a remarkable insight.

Fourth, it is now important to note what Jesus says and does, and what he does not say or do. He honors the centurion’s request and heals his servant. Next, he praises the centurion to high heaven for his insight, using superlative language: "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith" (v. 10), not as great as the gentile commander’s faith. What does Jesus not say or do? He does not denounce the centurion as a military servant of Rome. He never says, "Leave the army, for it is corrupt and intrinsically evil! If you don’t, I’ll never heal your servant!" As a moral example and teacher, if he wanted to point out behavior and practices that harm the people doing them, then he would have done so. But he did not.

Two Swords

The Gospel of Luke mentions real swords at the time of Jesus’ arrest. Did he endorse and encourage violence in the Gospels, presumably a righteous kind of violence? Did he call his original disciples to this? Did he order all of his disciples to buy swords? One verse (36) may indicate that he did.

The historical context of this verse demonstrates that for three years Jesus avoided making a public, triumphal entry of his visits to Jerusalem because he understood that when he set foot in the holy city in this way, he would fulfill his mission to die, in a death that looked like one of a common criminal, just as Isaiah the prophet had predicted hundreds of years before (Isaiah 53:12). He needed to complete his work outside of Jerusalem.

Now, however, Jesus finally enters the city famous for killing her prophets (Luke 13:33-34), a few days before his arrest, trial and crucifixion, all of which he predicted. Religious leaders were spying on him and asked him trick questions, so they could incriminate him (Luke 20:20). These insincere questions, though they were also asked before he entered the city, increased in frequency during these compacted tense days. But he answered impressively, avoiding their traps. Despite the tension, each day Jesus taught in the temple, and crowds gathered around him, so the authorities could not arrest him for fear of the people. Then Judas volunteered to betray him, saying that he would report back to the authorities when no crowd was present (Luke 22:1-6).

As Passover drew near, Jesus asked some of his disciples to prepare the Last Supper. He elevated the bread and the wine, representing his body and blood, which was broken and shed for the sins of the world in the New Covenant (Luke 22:17-20). However, during the meal, Judas slipped out to search for the authorities because he knew that it was the custom of Jesus to go to the Mount of Olives to pray (Luke 21:37), and that night would be no different.

At this point we pick up the textual context of Luke 22:36. They are eating the Last Supper on the night he was betrayed. Luke 22:35-38 says:

35 Then Jesus asked [the eleven apostles], "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. 36 He said to them, "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. 37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." 38 The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38)

Jesus contrasts his ministry before his arrival in Jerusalem with the tense few days in Jerusalem when spies and the authorities themselves were seeking to trap him. Does the tension play a part in understanding why he told his disciples to go out and buy swords? He says that he would be arrested and tried as a criminal, as the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12 predicted. Does this have anything to do with swords? Do criminals carry them around?

Jesus may have a deeper meaning in mind than the militaristic use of the two real swords. What is it?

Jesus says to the disciples to buy swords, but when they show him two, he says the two are enough. The obvious question is: two swords are enough for what? Are they enough for a physical fight to resist arrest? This is hardly the case because during Jesus’ arrest a disciple (Peter according to John 18:10) took out his sword and cut off the ear of the servant (Malchus in John 18:10) of the high priest. Jesus sternly tells Peter to put away his sword, "No more of this!" and then he heals the servant, restoring his ear (Luke 22:49-51).

Resisting arrest cannot be the purpose of the two swords. Were the two swords enough for an armed rebellion to resist the authorities and to impose the new Jesus movement in a political and military way? Jesus denounces this purpose in Luke 22:52, as the authorities are in the process of arresting him: "Am I leading a rebellion that you have come with swords and clubs?" The answer is no, as he is seized and led away (v. 54).

So the militaristic interpretation of Luke 22:36 that says the two swords were intended to be used will not work in the larger context.

Two swords are not enough to resist arrest, to pull off a revolt of some kind, or to fully protect the apostles and Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Then what are the two swords for?

In contrast to the militaristic interpretation, another interpretation works smoothly in the context so that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. Jesus reminds the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 9:3; 10:1-17). Did they need a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because people were friendlier, and their opposition to him was spread out over three years. Now, however, he is in Jerusalem, and he has undergone the compacted antagonism of religious leaders seeking to trap him with self-incriminating words. When the authorities are not present, they send their spies. The atmosphere is therefore tense, and the two swords – no more than that – represent the tension. Jesus’ mission has shifted to a clear danger, and the disciples must beware. However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, for he is about to tell Peter to put away his sword.

Verse 37 says: "It is written: ‘And he was numbered among the transgressors.’" By far the clearest purpose of the two swords is Jesus’ reference to Isaiah’s prophecy (Isaiah 53:12). He was destined to be arrested like a criminal, put on trial like one, and even crucified like one. He was hung on the cross between two thieves, which is also a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Luke 23:32; 39-43). What are criminals known for carrying with them? Weapons, and to be numbered among criminals, Jesus must also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough – to fulfill this prophecy. Also, Matthew mentions fulfilling prophecy (Matt. 26:54). If Peter had kept on physically using the sword to prevent Christ’s arrest, prophecy would not have been accomplished smoothly and without hindrance. That is why Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in its place (Matt. 26:52). And in Luke he says to Peter after the disciple cut off an ear, "No more of this!" (Luke 22:51).

This contextual interpretation does not say that the two swords did not exist (Luke 22:38). They are not only symbols, nor were they imaginary or invisible. They were real. Peter really did cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest with one of them (Matt. 26:50-51; Luke 22:49-51). But it would be misguided to build church doctrine on such a reaction in the heat of the moment, during Jesus’ arrest at night.

However, Jesus said to Peter in the Garden, "Put your sword back in its place," meaning, back in its scabbard or holder or in Peter’s belt or another article of clothing. He never said to throw the sword away, off to the side at a distance. Therefore, it is entirely possible that some disciples carried the two weapons after the crucifixion and burial when they lived in hostile territory, and continued carrying them even after the things got calmer.

However, the New Testament and later reliable tradition says that none of the apostles fought or even tried to fight their way out of fiery trials with swords, as some sort of violent martyrs. Therefore, a lifestyle of the sword was never part of the disciples’ new life, as they preached the message of hope. Evidently, the example of Jesus throughout his life and in the Garden of Gethsemane made an impression on Peter and the others. Though part of this is an argument from silence (drawing conclusions from what a text or history does not say), it is a significant silence of the historical records that speaks volumes, and it will be backed up by later articles in this series.

Jesus did not intend the early disciples to multiply the swords, as he did the loaves and the fishes, and then raise a secret or open militia to preach the gospel and threaten people if they did not receive their message or opposed the disciples outright. Two swords are not enough for such an odd goal. Instead, they were to follow the kingdom message and stay away from the path of violence as a matter of policy or an alternative method of getting people to convert. He called his disciples to rise above their culture of violence.

Conclusion

Jesus teaches that the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar are different and distinct. He did not purpose to reestablish the theocratic kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6-7). The episodes with John the Baptist and the soldiers and Jesus and the centurion confirm the division between the government and the church. Neither John nor Jesus denounces the military.

Under the direction of a just government, the military has a place in the world. It uses the sword to bring justice when people go astray or to protect the innocent. The government may wage a just war with an army or impose the peace by law enforcement.

The events in the Garden of Gethsemane and the commands of Jesus there also confirm the separation between the state and the church. The events teach the apostles nonaggression. He said to Peter: "For all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52). It is not the church’s mission, as an institution, to muster out a militia or army to bloody people with swords.

Yet, the two swords in Luke 22:36-37 were real, and it could be argued that they were used for self-defense of individuals while the disciples made their way back to Galilee and lived there for a time. Then they may have kept the swords as they moved back to Jerusalem and eventually scattered to the known world, preaching the gospel.

Therefore, an individual Christian today may own a weapon to defend his home, for example. But he must obey the law and avoid vices like machismo and recklessness. Also, he owns a weapon privately. He does not officially represent the church as an institution in his ownership; he is a citizen of society.

Alternatively, a Christian is certainly free not to own a weapon. The New Testament offers a choice and therefore freedom.

However, self-defense for an individual is not the same as the church raising an army to stamp out heresies and nonbelievers. The church and the government are not the same. Rather, the church, by its nature and purpose, is commanded to exhort, teach, guide, and counsel the government about the ways of God. The church exists to save souls, teach believers, and help the needy in practical ways, not to bloody and kill people with swords.

So we must follow the New Testament teaching on the separate kingdoms of God and of Caesar. Then we will have clarity.

QURAN AND THE SWORD

In Mecca, Islam was nonviolent, and maybe tolerant, up to a degree. Muhammad did, after all, preach against polytheism (belief in many gods), which all monotheists (belief in one God) have a right to do. But in terms of forcing them to convert to his new religion, he told the Meccan pagans they could have their religion, while he could have his (Quran 109:6).

And in the very earliest stages of his new life in Medina, Islam issued a decree of religious freedom: “There is no compulsion in religion.” (Quran 2:256).

However, he decided that he needed to have access to the Kabah shrine, though he did not know when at that early stage. Rather than letting the black stone go and build his new religion in Medina, by his way of thinking the Meccans were unjust for driving him out. So he attempted to weaken them by sending out raids against their trading caravans. Eventually the skirmishes peaked into large-scale battles. He increased his fortune and resources by these armed conflicts.

Thus gradually he elevated raids to a jihad. As things evolved, he won these battles, so he needed to define the rules of jihad. These rules seem to have been developed as victories piled up. They favor him.

We can examine jihad in three sections: its goal, its rules, and its spoils.

For a more thorough and longer study of the goal, rules, and spoils of jihad and qital, see the article Jihad and Qital in the Quran, Traditions and Classical Law.

The Goal of Jihad

A complicated practice like jihad can have multiple goals or purposes, but this one can be said to best summarize them. Muhammad intends to make Islam prevail over every religion. Quran 9:33 says:

33 It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to show that it is above all [other] religions, however much the idolaters may hate this[1] (Quran 9:33).

This verse is repeated two more times, word for word, in Quran 61:9 and 48:28, and this repetition shows theologically and religiously how important it is that Islam must prevail. As noted, while in Mecca Muhammad had said, “You have your religion and I have mine” (Quran 109:6). Now, however, Islam must prevail over all religions. Muhammad and his community may use preaching and persuasion, but as we shall see below, the Medinan verses in the Quran permit them to fight and kill Jews, Christians, and pagans. The sword made all the difference.

Waging jihad and qital to make Islam prevail is a perfect description of a holy war.

Muhammad’s later followers, specifically the four so-called rightly guided caliphs, will use these three identical verses to justify attacking remote territories, like Persia (Iran) and Cyprus.[2] As for the monetary motive for jihad, this will be covered in the spoils of jihad, below.

The Rules of Jihad

The Quran provides guidance for Muhammad and his Muslim community in the rules of jihad, establishing what is permitted or prohibited as Islamic armies go out to war. In any warfare, people and resources (e.g. money or productive property) are important, so they are the main reason for selecting these rules. They are placed in chronological order, whenever this could be obtained, and sometimes in thematic order, not necessarily for priority.

1. Women captives are sometimes forced to marry their Muslim masters.

The next verse in its context finds Muhammad establishing rules for his community within two to five years after his hijrah or emigration in A.D. 622. He lays down laws for marriage. What happens to slave women who are captured during the raids that the Muslims went out on? Quran 4:24 says:

24 Also (prohibited are) women already married except those whom your right hands possess[3] . . . . (Quran 4:24)

The clause “your right hands possess” means those who are in one’s control (cf. “handmaid”), whether captured in war or bought at a slave sale, regardless of the immediate historical context when this verse was revealed.[4] The clause will be applied throughout Islam’s wars under the four caliphs.

Worse still, women captives were sometimes forced to have sex with their Muslim captors, without the benefit of marriage.[5] But that’s a topic for the series on shariah (see Part 5, Slavery, in that separate series).

2. Conquered women and children may be enslaved.

In AD 627 Muhammad and his followers and allies withstood a large army of Meccans and their allies, without a pitched battle. He had dug trenches in spots around Medina to diminish the advantage that the Meccans had with their cavalry. After about a month the Meccans withdrew because of a fair that was about to begin, and it brought in money for the Meccans.

But Muhammad was not finished. He besieged a large tribe of Jews in Medina, called the Qurayza tribe, in their fortress. After some negotiations and a trial that went against them, the men were beheaded and their bodies and heads dragged and tossed into the trenches, whereas the women and children were sold into slavery. These three verses, especially v. 26, in Quran 33 deal with this verdict:

25 Allah turned back the unbelievers [Meccans and their allies] in a state of rage, having not won any good, and Allah spared the believers battle [q-t-l]. Allah is, indeed, Strong and Mighty. 26 And He brought those of the People of the Book [Qurayza] who supported them from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts, some of them you slew [q-t-l] and some you took captive. 27 And he bequeathed to you their lands, their homes and their possessions, together with land you have never trodden. Allah has power over everything.[6] (Quran 33:25-27)

Allah permits the enslavement of Qurayza women and children, and Muhammad sold them. Allah permits Muhammad to take the Jewish clan’s property on the basis of conquest and his possession of all things. Selling humans produced a lot of wealth.

See Part Five, Slavery, in a separate series on shariah.

3. A captured enemy may be killed, ransomed by money or an exchange, imprisoned, or released freely.

It is one of the great ironies of the Quran that Chapter 47 can be titled either “Muhammad” or “War” (Qital). It was written in the first year of his new life in Medina, when he had decided to wage war on the Meccans. Verse 4 says:

So, when you meet (in fight – Jihad in Allah’s cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed or wounded many of them [th-kh-n], then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until war lays down its burden[7] . . . . (Quran 47:4)

Imprisonment may be just, if the captured enemy can return to fight against the conquerors at a later time. But selling prisoners of war back to their clan was an Arab custom. Money could be made. It should be noted that the Quran offers release “by grace” or freely.[8]

The root th-kh-n in brackets means “subdue thoroughly, have a regular fighting, cause much slaughter, have a triumphant war . . . to do something great, make much slaughter, overcome, battle strenuously.”[9]

See Part Five, Slavery, in a separate series on shariah.

4. Property may be confiscated.

A conquering army at this time was permitted by custom and sheer power to take the wealth of the conquered. Recall that the historical context of Chapter 8 of the Quran concerns Muhammad’s and his militia’s surprise victory over the much-larger Meccan force at Badr in 624, in which over 300 Muslims won a surprise victory over about 1,000 Meccans. The Meccans had received word of this raid and sent their army up north to protect their caravan that was heading south back to Mecca.

Quran 8:7 says that the jihadists wanted the unarmed group (the caravan loaded with supplies), but Allah gave them that one, plus the Meccan army.

7 Remember how God promised you [believers] that one of the two enemy groups would fall to you: you wanted the unarmed group to be yours, but it was God's will to establish the truth according to His Word and to finish off the disbelievers.[10] (Quran 8:7)

Muhammad and his militia were able to take the property the caravan had gotten in Syria. Now he was wealthy, especially compared to his poverty before he won this battle. And recall that Quran 33:25-27 say the Muslim community was permitted to confiscate the property of the Qurayza Jews in 627.

Finally, it will be seen in Part Eight that the four caliphs indeed confiscated wealth, since Muhammad set the institutional genetic code for them, but they often allowed the conquered people to work the land because then the wealth flowed back to Medina, the early Islamic capital.

5. Fruit trees and homes may be destroyed.

In 625, Muhammad was strong enough to exile the Nadir tribe of Jews, besieging them in their strongholds for fifteen days until he started destroying their date palms.[11] Their livelihood undergoing destruction, they departed to the city of Khaybar, seventy miles to the north, where they had estates. This takeover helped relieve the ongoing poverty of many Muslims at that time, who took over their date orchards. This passage in the Quran says:

5 Whatever you [believers] may have done to [their] palm trees – cutting them down or leaving them standing on their roots – was done by God’s leave, so that He might disgrace those who defied Him.[12] (Quran 59:5)

It is not clear in later Islamic history whether all of the caliphs actually destroyed fruit trees, and if so how many. They probably did not do this very often since that destruction would lose money for Medina and Islam.[13] The trees that bore fruit, like dates, needed to be cultivated to profit from conquests.

In the same chapter of the Quran and during the same conflict, Muhammad destroys the homes of the Jewish tribe of Nadir who lived in Medina.

2 ... God came upon [the Jews of the Nadir tribe] from where they least expected and put panic into their hearts: they brought ruin to their own homes by their own hands, and the hands of the believers [Muslims].[14]... (Quran 59:2)

It is not known in precise terms how many homes the Muslim armies under the four caliphs destroyed, but surely some were torn down, just from the nature of warfare. But Medina wanted the money from taxes, so surely the armies could not be too destructive.

6. The conquered pagans are at first allowed to convert or go free, but later they are forced to convert or be killed.

As noted, Muhammad fought the Battle of Badr, against the Meccans. Their caravan was traveling south from Syria back to Mecca, and Muhammad intended to capture it. In Quran 8:70, Muhammad proposes these options to his captives.

70 Prophet, tell those you have taken captive, "If God knows of any good in your hearts, He will give you something better [Islam] than what has been taken from you [the caravan], and He will forgive you"... (Quran 8:70)[15]

So Muhammad tells the Meccans that they should realize that Allah had a divine plan: expose them to Islam. This is better than all the material riches they can trade in. A Muslim militia just defeated the Meccans and stood behind this message of conversion, so it is not clear how free they were to decide such weighty matters of conscience.

Quran 2:256 says: “There is no compulsion in religion.” This verse reflects the historical reality that he had just left persecution in Mecca. And even in Medina when this early verse was uttered, he needed to preach tolerance because he had not yet achieved military strength.

However, when Chapter 9 of the Quran was written about eight years later, Muhammad was very powerful militarily. Now pagans did not have the option to live under Islam, pay a tax, and keep their religion, as the People of the Book did. Quran 9:5 says:

5 . . . Then fight and slay [q-t-l] the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them.[16] (Quran 9:5)

If pagans accept Islam, they could live. If not, death.[17] Recall that Muhammad had said, back in Mecca, long ago, that the Meccan pagans could have their religion, while he could have his (Quran 109:6). Acceptance and tolerance had prevailed. Now, however, things have changed. He is militarily powerful. So he could hunt them down and kill them.

It will be seen in Part Eight that the earliest generations of Muslims, after Muhammad’s death, implemented this policy towards pagans, as the jihadists conquered the Arab peninsula and then many places north, west, and east. However, sometimes the caliphs let polytheists outside of the Arab peninsula live because Islamic leaders needed their tax money, like the jizyah.

This tax money in this verse is called the zakat, and it is the required charity tax, which is the third of the Five Pillars of Islam.[18]

Then Muhammad continues in his denunciations and requirements imposed on pagan Arabs, especially those around Mecca.

11 If they repent, keep up the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms [zakat], then they are your brothers in faith: We make the messages clear for people who understand . . . 14 Fight [q-t-l] them: God will punish them at your hands, He will disgrace them, He will help you to conquer them, He will heal the believers' feelings. (Quran 9:11, 14)

In v. 11, these rituals are the signs of Islam, and pagans who follow them are essentially Muslims. However, if they do not keep their oaths and mock Muhammad’s religion (vv. 12-13), then v. 14 says to fight them, using the three-letter root q-t-l.[19] The last clause in that verse says God will heal the believers’ feelings, which corresponds to Muhammad’s hatred for the pagans (Quran 5:2).

7. Three options are imposed on Jews and Christians.

Quran 9:29 lays out some conditions for the People of the Book (Jews and Christians):

29 Fight [q-t-l] against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.[20]

The options are as follows: Jews and Christians may (1) Fight and die; (2) convert; (3) keep their religion, but pay a tax, called the jizyah while living under Islam.[21] In this verse, Muhammad lifts his sight far beyond the Kabah in Mecca, but to other religions and resources. The first four caliphs were mainly consistent with this policy, though another tax may be imposed.

The Spoils of Jihad

Arab custom demanded that the raiders and warriors get a share of the spoils of raids and wars. The Meccan Muslims who originally immigrated to Medina worked with their hands in the craft trade, while Medina was more agricultural. So they were impoverished. Something had to be done. Getting the spoils of Meccan caravans would do nicely.

Chapter 8, celebrating their first major victory at Badr, is titled “the Spoils.” Muhammad says in v. 41:

"Know that one-fifth of your battle gains belongs to God and the Messenger [Muhammad]"[22] . . . . (Quran 8:41)

That is, Muhammad gets twenty percent for himself and for the needy in his community, as he distributes the newly acquired wealth. The implication is that the jihadists were to get eighty percent. This distribution was a strong motive or inducement to keep alive the Arab custom of raiding and warring. In fact, spoils may have been the main goal of early Islam.

The first four caliphs mostly maintained this policy of one-fifth going back to Medina or the generals or governors, while four-fifths went to the soldiers. Sometimes, however, the leaders put variations on this policy, depending on how generous they were at the moment.

But the conquests mentioned in Quran 9:6, 9:11-16 and 9:29, above, and the subsequent taxes that flowed into Medina were also strong inducements to keep on fighting and conquering.

For a longer and more thorough study of the goal, rules, and spoils of jihad and qital, see my article Jihad and Qital in the Quran, Traditions, and Classical Law.

Conclusion

In Mecca, early in Muhammad’s preaching career, he preached nonviolence (Quran 109:6 and 2:256). He was not strong militarily, and perhaps he really believed in tolerance. But in Medina he began his raids because he wanted to return to the pagan Kabah shrine in Mecca; it was unjust that the Meccans forced him out of his hometown.

After Muhammad transitioned from the path of peace to warfare, he had to establish the goal, rules, and results (or spoils) of jihad. He seems to have come up with them in an ad hoc manner. As he went out on a skirmish or battle and won, he sized up the situation, and decided on what to do, like how to divide the spoils of war. At these times he got revelations. They worked out in Islam’s favor.

From here on, Muhammad’s life and his Quran are consistent. He waged war, and the later Medinan verses in the Quran reflect this practice. Jihad and qital appear much more frequently in the Medinan chapters than in the Meccan ones. He set the institutional genetic code.

And now there is no ambiguity for his community after he died in A.D. 632. They may also wage war. Quran 9:33, 61:9, and 48:28 – all identical – say that Islam will prevail over all other religions, and these verses permitted Muhammad to wage war for at least one religious reason. Indeed, for many centuries later, the Muslim community, wherever it was strong, has implemented jihad.

Religion and the state were embodied in his one person, Muhammad, especially in his control of the military and taxes. Often he said that to obey Allah is to obey his messenger – Muhammad himself (Quran 8:1, 13, 20, 24, 46; 9:54, 62-63, 71, 84, 91; 47:33; 48:10, 17). All four chapters (8, 9, 47, and 48) were given in Medina and in the context of war and power politics.[23]

We can only speculate as to what might have been, if he had given up the pagan shrine, not devotionally kissed the black stone housed there, and begun his own sacred site in Medina and allowed the Meccans to have their religion, while he has his (Quran 109:6). He could have risen above his own culture; then surely the raids and wars would have never started in the first place, and surely peace would have won out, then and now.[24]

However, the tolerance of original Islam in Mecca all those years before his flight to Medina in 622 and the tolerance of Islam during his first year in his new city were now left behind.

In late A.D. 630, when Quran 9:11, 14 were revealed, Muhammad’s war on the pagans was going strong until they convert and pay the zakat tax. If not, they die. And Quran 9:29 gives jihadists permission to war against Christians and Jews, until they convert, die in battle, or pay a jizyah or poll (submission) tax.

So, if Christians and Jews fought and died, Islam could take over their resources. If they submitted and kept their religion, Islam could get their taxes. Either way, wealth flowed back to Medina and to the jihadists.

Why would Muhammad get a revelation that would dry up this money flow, for the benefit of peace and tolerance? He didn’t.

[1] Abdel Haleem, The Quran, rev. ed. (New York: Oxford, 2010). The word in brackets is the translator’s. The three-letter Arabic root z-h-r can mean "to become distinct . . . ascend, be manifest, mount, get the better of, distinguish, be obvious, conspicuous . . . get the upper hand over." (Omar, Dictionary, 353-54). It can also mean "triumph" or "victorious" or "prevail," in this case over all religions. The last three words come from various translations of the verse. Cf. 9:8 “get the upper hand over you”; 61:14 “who came out on top”). If readers would like to see various translation of the Quran, they may go to the website quranbrowser.com and type in the references.

[2] The four caliphs were Abu Bakr (r. 632-634), Umar (r. 634-644), Uthman (r. 644-656), and Ali (r. 656-661). “Caliph” means “successor,” “deputy,” or “representative.” For the relevant use of the word “caliph” (kh-l-f) in the Quran, see, e.g., 2:30; 6:156; 7:69, 74, 142, 169; 10:14, 73; 19:59; 27:62; 35:39; and 38:26.

[3] Abdullah Yusuf Ali, the Meaning of the Holy Quran, 11th ed., (Belleville, Maryland: Amana, 2004). The parenthetical note is his. He says in a comment on the verse that the clause “whom your right hands possess” means “captives in a Jihad” (note 537). Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, a respected Muslim commentator, agrees and says about the verse that is it lawful for Muslims to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive (The Meaning of the Quran, 4th ed., vol. 1, trans. Ch. Muhammad Akbar, ed. A. A. Kamal, [Lahore, Pakistan: Islamic Publications, 2003] 319, note 44). His translation and commentary are available online at englishtafsir.com.

[4] Khumus is one-fifth of the spoils of war, which goes to the commander or back to Medina. This hadith says:

The prophet sent Ali [soon to be the fourth caliph] to Khalid [a general] to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and . . . Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). "Do you hate Ali for this? ...Don’t hate him, for he deserves more than that from Khumus” (Bukhari, Military Expeditions, 5.4350, in Sahih Bukari, 9 vols. trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Riyadh: Darussalam, 1997), hereafter cited as Bukhari; the parenthetical comments are the translator’s; bracketed comments are added).

The hadith are searchable online at the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement, under the aegis of the University of Southern California.

[5] Bukhari, Marriage, 007.062.137; cf. idem Military Expeditions, 005.059.459 and 637, and Manumission 003.046.718. Muslim, Jihad and Expeditions, 19.4345.

[6] Yusuf Ali’s translation. The words in brackets are added and not those of the translator.

[7] Al-Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur’an, (Riyadh: Darussalam), 2002; all insertions are theirs. Yusuf Ali goes says that this chapter was revealed early in Medina, and the fledgling Muslim community was “under threat of extinction by invasion from Makkah” (i.e. Mecca). However, the Muslim community conducted small but growing raids against Meccan caravans within a year of arriving in Medina, so the threat is exaggerated.

[8] Hadith collector and editor Abu Dawud (d. 870) in Sunan Abu Dawud, trans. Ahmed Hasan (Lahore, Pakistan: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1984, 2004), hereafter cited as Abu Dawud, says that a captured enemy combatant may be killed (Jihad, 2.2680); he may be tied with chains as a slave (ibid. 2.2671-2674); he is allowed to be beaten in order to extract information (ibid. 2 2675); he may be released freely (ibid. 2.2682-2683), or he may be ransomed; that is, he may purchase his freedom (ibid. 2.2684-2688).

[9] Omar, Dictionary, 80-81. It is used only twice in the Quran, here in 47:4 and 8:67.

[10] The word in brackets is added by Abdel Haleem.

[11] These hadiths refer to this historical event surrounding the Nadir tribe and approve of it: Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim, 4 vols., trans. and ed. Abdul Hamid Siddiqi (Lahore, Pakistan: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1992), Jihad and Military Expeditions, 3.4324-4326, hereafter cited as Muslim; Abu Dawud Jihad, 2.2609.

[12] Abdel Haleem’s bracketed notes.

[13] Yusuf Ali in his translation notes to Quran 2:190 says that Islam may wage war, but under well-defined limits. “In any case, strict limits must not be transgressed: women, children, old and infirm men should not be molested, nor trees and crops cut down” . . . (note 204). However, rules 1-6 in this article, based squarely on the Quran, contradict Yusuf Ali’s claims. His commentary is helpful much more often than not, but he frequently “soft sells” the harsh aspects of Islam, so his footnoted commentary to his translation must be used with caution, and so does his translation. Balance it out with Al-Hilali and Khan’s translation.

[14] Ibid. The bracketed notes have been added.

[15] Ibid. The bracketed notes have been added.

[16] Yusuf Ali’s translation, and the parenthetical note is his. The note in the brackets was added. He goes on to say that verse 6 says that some pagans among them may seek asylum and Muslims should grant it (note 1253)

[17] In one tradition, women and children should not be killed (Bukhari, Jihad, 4.3014, 3105; Muslim, Jihad and Military Expeditions, 3.4319-4320; Abu Dawud, Jihad, 2. 2662). But this makes economic sense, because the victors could sell them into slavery or enjoy more sexual license with them. However, in another tradition, the women and children of polytheists are permitted to be killed during nighttime raids when visibility is low. A soldier asked Muhammad "about the polytheist whose settlement were attacked at night when some of their offspring and women were smitten [killed]. The Prophet . . . said: They are of them" (Abu Dawud, ibid. 2.2666; Bukhari, ibid. 4.3012; Muslim, ibid. 3.4321-4323). That is, they are all the same – they are polytheist, so they do not matter.

[18] The Five Pillars are as follows: (1) Profession of faith; (2) regular prayer five times a day; (3) zakat or required charity tax; (4) fasting during Ramadan; (5) pilgrimage or hajj.

[19] Bukhari says that Muhammad was ordered by Allah to call people to accept Islam (Jihad, 4.2946; cf. nos. 25 and 1399). If they convert, then their lives and property will be kept safe from him. These hadith from Bukhari make the same offer: ibid. 4.2937, 2940, 3010, 3058.

[20] Al-Hilali and Khan’s translation; the parenthetical notes are theirs; the note in the bracket has been added. Karen Armstrong, former nun and essayist-historian on religion, who favors Islam, writes the following about Jews and Christians submitting to Islam. “The Dhimmi system [policies governing Christians and Jews] was not perfect. Later Islamic law evolved some rather humiliating legislation: dhimmis were not allowed to build without permission; their places of worship must not tower over the mosque; they had to bow when the presented the jizyah tax were forbidden to ride on horseback, and had to wear distinctive clothing, although these rules were not rigidly enforced” (Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths, [NY: Ballantine, 1997], 231).

[21] Hadith editor Muslim says that Muhammad would exhort his jihadists to make three offers when their army surrounds a town or settlement: (1) the surrounded enemy may convert; (2) they may refuse to accept Islam and pay the jizyah or poll tax, which allows non-Muslims to live under the "protection" of Islam; or (3) they must be fought if they refuse the first two (Jihad and Military Expeditions, 3.4294; see Abu Dawud, Jihad, 2.2606).

[22] Abdel Haleem’s translation. The note in brackets is added by me.

[23] A religious leader or founder of a new movement can command obedience (Jn. 14:15), but Muhammad backed his call to obedience with the sword and combined political power with religion.

[24] Muslim apologists believe that the Meccans were bothering Muhammad all the way up in Medina 250 miles to the north. However, they were glad to get rid of him and went on conducting their trade. And if he was still afraid for his life, he could have formed a bodyguard until the heat cooled down. But he instead chose to send out or lead raids against their caravans. It is no wonder that the conflict never stopped during his lifetime.

THE TWO KINDS OF SWORDS

Physical things can be transformed into metaphors or nonliteral things. Light, for example, can be literal energy, or it can refer to inner illumination that clarifies morality.

Walking can be the physical act of moving one’s feet, or it can mean our life, our conduct or behavior, how we pursue a course of action or navigate moral problems.

Swords can be used in the same way. They can be physical or metaphorical.

Two verses, one in the Gospel of Matthew and the other in the Quran, illustrate that there are two different kinds of swords.

Matthew 10:34

The verse says:

34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword."[1] (Matt. 10:34)

The historical context is Jewish culture, as Jesus ministers to his own people. He sends out the twelve disciples to the “lost sheep of Israel,” not yet to the gentiles (Matt. 10:1-42), who will be reached after the resurrection (Matt. 28:16-20). It is not surprising, historically speaking, that he would spread his word by proclamation to his own, by Jewish disciples. He predicts that some towns may not receive the disciples and that the authorities may put them on trial and flog them. In that eventuality, they should shake the dust off their feet, pray for them, and flee to another city. It is only natural that first-century Jews may not understand this Jesus movement, so they resist it. These cultural facts explain the literary context, which shows division among family members.

The literary context must be quoted in full to explain the meaning of “sword” in Matt 10:34.

32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household [Micah 7:6]. 37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matt. 10:32-39, emphasis added)

The one key element in this lengthy passage is the word “sword,” and its meaning is now clear. It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may “split” it up, the precise function of a metaphorical sword. Are his disciples ready for that? This kind of spiritual sword invisibly severs a man from his father, and daughter from her mother, and so on (Micah 7:6).

It is a sound interpretive method to let Scripture clarify Scripture. Luke 12:51-53 reveals the meaning of the key verse and metaphorical sword in Matt. 10:34.

51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." (Luke 12:51-53, emphasis added)

In this passage, the sword represents division (v. 51), not a physical weapon. It is only natural that Matthew, the traditional author of the most Jewish of the Gospels, would include a pericope (a unit or section) like Matt. 10:32-39. Given Jesus’ own family resistance early on (they later came around), it is only natural he would say that no matter what the cost, one must follow him to the end, even if it means giving up one’s family. But this applies only if the family rejects the new convert, not if the family accepts him in his new faith; he must not reject them because the whole point of Jesus’ advent is to win as many people to his side as possible, even if this divides the world in two, but never violently.

Some interpreters believe that it is the new convert’s family who may wield the sword against him. That is a possible interpretation. But the new convert is not the one who picks up his sword and attacks his family.

Jesus never wielded a sword against anyone, and in Matt. 10:34 he does not order his followers to swing one either, in order to kill their family opponents or for any reason. But a true disciple who is worthy of following Christ and who comes from a possibly hostile family has to be ready for a sword to be wielded against him that sever away all family ties. He may even have to take up his cross, as his family may “crucify” him – another metaphorical instrument for the disciples. Or the cross symbolizes his dying to self-will. Either way, he may have to suffer abandonment from his family, a division.

It is true that Jesus divides the world into two camps or kingdoms, those who follow him, and those who do not, those in the light, and those in the dark. However, he never tells his followers to wage war on everyone else, and certainly not on one’s family. If people in the second camp do not convert, they will not be harassed with swords, even if they persecute believers.

Quran 9:123

Muhammad’s outlook and policies contrast starkly with those of Jesus. We take Quran 9:123 as our counter-verse to Mt. 10:34 because, as we will see, both share the context of family relations. Quran 9:123 says,

123 You who believe, fight [q-t-l] those of the disbelievers near you and let them find you standing firm: be aware that God is with those who are mindful of Him.[2] (Quran 9:123)

Recall that the word qital (root is q-t-l) means more than just a struggle or striving; it means warring, fighting, killing, slaying, and slaughtering.

The historical context of this verse takes place after a military expedition in early 630, so it is late in Muhammad’s life. Many scholars regard Chapter 9 as one of the last ones to be revealed, if not the last one. Therefore, it sets many policies for Muslims today, and is often interpreted as abrogating or canceling previous verses, even peaceful ones. During the military expedition, Muhammad led a large army of 20,000-30,000 soldiers to the northern city of Tabuk in order to confront the Byzantine Christians. The Byzantines failed to show up, so Muhammad’s campaign was fruitless, except he managed to impose the jizyah tax on northern tribes of Jews and Christians.

After the Muslims returned to Medina, Muhammad scolded the "hypocrites" who had stayed behind and failed to support him. Then he turns to those people who stirred up strife in the community by expressing doubt in Muhammad’s revelations; they needed to be silenced. This latter group is whom he attacks in v. 123 – the “unbelievers.” He may wage war on them.

Another aspect of the historical context should be considered. Muhammad urges his fighters forward in order to kill the unbelievers, even if the latter belong to the fighters’ own family, as seen in the words “near you” in v. 123, which implies a relational nearness as well as a geographical one. “Believers, do not take your fathers and brothers as allies, if they prefer disbelief to faith” [3] (9:23). Now v. 123 raises the stakes and says fighting (q-t-l) them may be necessary.

The immediate textual context of the verse shows conflict with those refusing to support or even opposing Muhammad. For example, in v. 121 Muhammad complains that the hypocrites do not spend any money in Allah’s cause, so Allah will recompense them accordingly. Next, Muhammad instructs his troops in v. 122 that not all Muslims should go out on a campaign of jihad, but some should stay behind to teach Islam, so they may warn people to beware of evil. Finally, in the verses after v. 123 Muhammad condemns the unbelievers for mocking his revelations. Thus, the literary context does not consist of peace and friendship with Muhammad’s opponents, and that is why he deals with them harshly in v. 123.

The elements within v.123 yield three truths.

First, Muhammad uses the Arabic word qital (three letter root is q-t-l), which, as noted, always means physically fighting and killing and warring. This word is usually stronger than jihad (three letter root is j-h-d), which Muhammad uses in Quran 9:73, a companion to v. 123. Quran 9:73 says:

73 Prophet, strive [j-h-d] against unbelievers and the hypocrites and be tough on them. Hell is their final home – an evil destination.[4] (9:73)

Thus, jihad and qital can barely be distinguished in vv. 123 and 73, since the means (swords) and the goal (submission or death) of fighting are the same in both verses. Not only does Muhammad say that his Muslims should fight the unbelievers and hypocrites, but they should do so harshly or sternly.

Second, the translations in the two verses (73 and 123) “tough” and “standing firm” can be translated as “harsh,” “hard,” “severe,” “vehement,” “rigid,” “fierce,” and “stern.”[5]

Third, Muhammad wages military war on unbelievers. Islam divides the world into Dar-ul-Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Kufr (Abode of Unbelief). In vv. 73 and 123 Allah permits the believing world, Islam, to wage war (qital) on and physically struggle (jihad) against the unbelieving world – everyone else – Dar al-Harb (the Abode of War). This “everyone else” may involve kinship and family ties.

Conclusion of this section

Muhammad’s and Jesus’s use of the sword is completely different from each other.

In the later stage of Muhammad’s life, he commanded the believers to kill unbelievers with a literal and physical sword, even those “near you,” that is, family members and neighbors.

In contrast, Jesus says a spiritual or metaphorical sword may sever family ties and divide those near the disciples, so they must be ready for that.

[1] The New International Version is used in this article, unless otherwise noted. If readers would like to see other translations, they can go to biblegateway.com.

[2] M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, The Quran, rev. ed. (New York: Oxford, 2010). The bracketed word is added by me. If readers would like to see various translation of the Quran, they may go to the website quranbrowser.com and type in the references.

[3] The root of “near” is w-l-y, and there are many references in the Quran to it. For our purposes it can mean, depending on the context, “kindred” or “kinship” or close “friendship.” See Quran 3:68; 4:135; 8:72, 75; 33:6 (the prophet is nearer to Muslims than their selves); and 74:34-35.

[4] Abdel Haleem’s translation.

[5] Abdul Mannan Omar, Dictionary of the Holy Quran (Hockessin, Delaware: 2003, 2004), 407-08. The root is gh-l-f. See Quran 3:159; 4:21, 154; 11:58; 14:17; 31:24; 33:7; 41:50; 66:6, 9. The translation by Abdel Haleem chooses the gentler words “firm” and “tough.”

EARLY CHURCH AND THE SWORD

Should the church be a state of sorts, as it has in some periods in its history? Should the church wield the sword in the name of God? We have already seen in previous articles that Jesus separates the kingdom of God from the kingdom of Caesar, but what are the teachings and practices of the early church? Do they hint that the New Testament church took a slightly different path?

This article looks at the book of Acts and the epistles. Then a brief description of the lives of key church leaders and their deaths is presented. Did they pick up swords to stop the persecution and control nonconformists?

Peter and Cornelius the Centurion

The book of Acts records the historical growth of the early Jesus movement, sometimes called the Way (Acts 9:2; 24:14), which was eventually named the church. In many passages the Roman and Jewish authorities confronted the apostles, especially Paul in the second half of Acts (e.g. 4:8-12; 25:8-11). None of the apostles denounced the authorities for carrying swords as such. True, sometimes the apostles challenged the authorities’ justice, but not the government’s right to exist and impose order on society, with the sword, if necessary, as a general rule. Two examples of the Christian community accepting the governmental authorities – the kingdom of Caesar – carrying swords can be seen in Peter’s and then Paul’s life.

Does not a Roman centurion deserve divine censure on the face of it? However, this is God’s assessment of the commander:

1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. 3 One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, "Cornelius!" 4 Cornelius stared at him in fear. "What is it, Lord?" he asked. The angel answered, "Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.[1] (Acts 10:1-4)

Apparently, Cornelius’ godliness positively influenced his family – not an easy task since often the family can see the hypocrisy in the head of household more clearly than outsiders see it. The end of the story, one of divine coincidences, is happy. Cornelius and his family convert, are filled with the Spirit, and are baptized (Acts 10:44-48). He is a military man and the first gentile convert to the church. The lead apostle Peter never tells the centurion to leave the army or give up his weapons. Further, no one knows if Cornelius ever killed an enemy, but if he rose to the rank of centurion, then he probably served for a long time, as a career. And if he served for a long time, then he probably saw some action. If he saw some action, then he probably killed an enemy, or ordered his men to kill. Yet, it is possible to be blessed of God while serving in the military and possibly killing an enemy in battle or in law enforcement. Most important, Cornelius shows that soldiers should develop good and godly characters as they serve the state.

Paul and a Jailer

Paul was constantly persecuted just for preaching the gospel, not for committing acts of “righteous” violence. In this case he expelled a demon from a hapless girl, so he waged spiritual warfare, just as we saw Jesus do. In the Roman colony of Philippi he and his traveling companion Silas were “severely flogged” and jailed in the inner cell of prison, which was probably stinky, damp, insect- and rat-infested. Their feet fastened in stocks, they were singing hymns to God, but then an earthquake in the middle of the night loosed their bonds and opened the prison doors.

27 The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul shouted, "Don't harm yourself! We are all here!" 29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family. (Acts 16:27-34)

Being filled with joy, the jailer and his family convert to Christ. However, Paul never tells the jailer to abandon his career. In fact, the jailer is seen fulfilling his duties in an official capacity the next day (Acts 16:35-36). The jailer carried his sword after his conversion.

Summary

These two passages in Acts teach us that Christians can serve in law enforcement, and by extension, in the military because it imposes peace on a large scale, just as law enforcement does on a small scale. To go beyond these two passages, nowhere in the book of Acts do Peter and Paul encourage the church to rush out to buy swords. On a practical level, swords, even small ones, were expensive, so how could the fledgling church buy them for the fast-growing number of disciples? Leaders needed to take care of the poor with food distribution (Acts 6:1-7).

But is it conceivable that some prosperous recent converts to the new Jesus movement owned swords? Yes. However, the enemies of the church would have accused it of violence if it had ever used swords regularly or as an ecclesiastical policy. On the contrary, Christians were sometimes persecuted and even martyred by unjust civil authorities.

Though this reasoning is, in part, an argument from silence (what a text or history does not say), the silence is significant. The logic of history requires us to assume that if the early Christians had an opportunity and a motive to retaliate with violence as a matter of church policy, but the records demonstrate that they did not do this, then we can be certain that they in fact followed the path of peace and nonviolence. But if anyone, whether believer or unbeliever, serves in the military, then he or she performs a sacred duty. The epistles confirm with positive evidence these nonviolent actions and policies in Acts and the state’s role in keeping the peace.

Paul’s Theology

The epistles were written primarily to explain pressing, practical needs, as well as to introduce new Christian theology. In the Mediterranean world, while Christians traveled, they were sometimes subjected to violence that everyone also suffered from, such as banditry (2 Corinthians 11:26). This was a pressing, practical need. But no ecclesiastical policy of carrying swords can be found in these documents. Though the motive and need existed to write such a policy, the epistles’ authors do not take that opportunity.

Paul taught that the kingdom of the world or Satan is different from the kingdom of God. “You were dead in your transgressions . . . when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air” (Satan’s spiritual kingdom) . . . “no immoral person . . . has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God” (Ephesians 2:2 and 5:5). “He has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued you us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son [Jesus] he loves” (Colossians 1:12).

The various teachers in the church through their epistles speak of using weapons while they lived like strangers in the world, but the weapons are very special swords. Paul in his second epistle to the Corinthians reports on his own trials during ministry, which led to “beatings, imprisonment, and riots.” Even though he suffered much unjust violence from his persecutors, he did not lash out with swords, raising a small militia or sending an assassination hit squad. Per contra, he speaks of these weapons: . . . “Weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left” (2 Corinthians 6:7). Physical weapons do not occupy either hand. To strengthen this interpretation of hands empty of physical weapons, he also says in the same epistle:

3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

In these two Corinthian passages Paul seems glad to contrast divine and moral weapons with physical and worldly ones. He explicitly denies worldly weapons and explicitly affirms divine or moral ones in his ministry. Jesus set the example, and Paul followed him, or perhaps he followed the policy commonly practiced among other leaders in the church who personally knew Jesus. This indicates that the widespread use of physical swords never took root in the church.

In Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians he repeats the notion that the Christian’s weapons are not physical, but spiritual. He borrows from the image of the Roman soldier and explicitly says that the true sword is the word of God (cf. Hebrews 4:12). He writes:

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Ephesians 6:10-17)

Paul completely agrees with the kingdom message of Jesus, which involves spiritual warfare, such as fighting Satan. Also, this epistle was probably an encyclical, meaning it was intended for several churches. This confirms, again, that the use of physical weapons was not widespread in the early church, according to apostolic teaching.

Paul writes that God establishes, in general terms, civil authorities who are God’s servants and who carry the sword. A passage in the epistle to the Romans is the classical text. Paul writes:

1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. (Romans 13:1-6)

Paul also writes to Titus, whom Paul left on Crete to complete some work there as a leader of the church on the island: “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities” (Titus 3:1).

Civil authorities may wield the sword for punishing wrongdoing, but the church is not permitted to do this. That is the result of keeping the kingdom of God separate from the kingdom of Caesar. Now we have clarity.

The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews

The author of Hebrews[2] states that the kingdom of God cannot be shaken, in contrast to the earthly systems and kingdoms (Hebrews 12:28).

The author also speaks of a spiritual sword, likening it to the word of God. He writes:

12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12).

This verse is far from an endorsement of a physical sword used as a matter of church policy, even though the original readers of the epistle suffered from persecution, like public insults, imprisonment and confiscation of their property (Hebrews 10:32-39).

In the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11 the author extols the courage of men and women of God:

36 . . . Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. 37 They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated – 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground. (Hebrews 11:36-38)

Some were put to death with the sword, but they were innocent. They did not put the innocent or anyone else to death with the sword.

Peter’s Theology

Peter also distinguishes between the realms of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar (the world). Christians are called strangers in this world (1 Peter 1:1, 17 and 2:11), which is contrasted with heaven and eternal glory (1:4; 5:10) and the “eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:11). Like Paul, Peter uses the metaphor of darkness and light: God “called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Peter 2:9), adding that God’s people are a “holy nation” (v. 10).

Though neither Peter nor Paul (or the author of Hebrews) endorses the sword for the church as a policy, Peter and Paul teach that God endorses agents of the state, who carry the sword and who bring peace and justice to the world. Paul assumes that the military is part of this world system (1 Corinthians 9:7, 14:8; 2 Timothy 2:4), and so does Jesus, incidentally (Matt. 22:7; Luke 11:21-22, 14:31-32, 19:27). Peter writes that civil authorities may punish those who do wrong:

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. (1 Peter 2:13-14)

Then Peter says Christians should not suffer as criminals.

15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. (1 Peter 4:15)

In the Roman empire, the authorities were instituted among humankind, whether the leader or representative was a king or governor. He had the authority and power to punish criminals, even with the sword. Significantly, however, Peter also teaches in his epistle that the state can go astray and persecute Christians, even though they may live a godly life (1 Peter 2:19-20; 3:8-18). So the state does not receive unquestioned, unchallenged permission to do what it likes. Since the state does not receive revelations directly from God nor from a theocrat, we can use reason and human rights to shape the state.

Of course, the church should offer its guidance, but ultimately the state does not have to listen to it. It would be wise, however, if the state recognized that it receives its ultimate ordination from God, so it should not oppress ordinary citizens obeying the law, who are made in God’s image.

Summary

All of these passages about governing authorities in Peter’s and Paul’s writings and the epistle to the Hebrews are full of many truths.

God ordains the state to impose order on the world, even by the sword. But the state must follow justice, not excessive policies that oppress religious or political freedom. This is why Peter wrote that Christians must bear up under official persecution, even though they were good citizens (1 Peter 2:19-20; 3:8-18). Governmental injustice anywhere can be challenged, as Paul often did in the book of Acts.

Second, the believer and unbeliever alike should submit to the governing authorities so the citizens can enjoy a peaceful life. This is especially incumbent on Christians who have to maintain their witness to the world, living a godly life.

Next, the agents of the state punish the wrongdoer and commend the good. Historically, punishing criminals was harsh in the Roman empire (too harsh by today’s standards), but we can use reason to craft the state to follow justice. Regardless of the particulars, the timeless principle behind the history and the texts says that punishment of wrongdoers is God-ordained.

Further, the words “judgment,” “sword,” “terror” (= “fear” in Greek), “wrath” and “punishment” are found in Romans 13:2-4. In the Old Testament, God does not shy away from executing justice on the surface of his planet, against his highest creation, humans. Thus, the so-called “God of the New Testament,” so wrongly separated from the “God of the Old Testament,” does not teach only peace and love – though that is the main message.

With that said, in the God who inspired the New Covenant uses primarily the nontheocratic state to bring about justice and judgment here on earth. This division between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar in the epistles agrees with this thesis in the Gospels.

Moreover, if a Christian becomes a soldier or a police officer, then he officially and publicly serves the state. But his private faith and religion will make him a better servant because he strives to act with integrity. Ultimately, the Christian soldier or officer serves a just and loving God, so he obeys justice. But his service is subjected to fluctuating circumstances.

Therefore the soldier or officer must exercise wisdom as to when and how to apply justice. He must also know the law, which provides a lot of guidance in difficult situations.

A Spiritual Temple

At first, the earliest Jewish Christians were attached, on some level, to the temple in Jerusalem (Acts 3:1-2, 8, 10-11; 5:12, 20-21, 24-25, 42; 21:26-30; 22:17; 24:6, 12, 18). But Stephen said in his defense before the Sanhedrin, the highest court in Jerusalem (Acts 7:48-49):

48 However, the Most High does not live in houses [temples] made by human hands. As the prophet says:

49 “Heaven is my throne,

     and the earth is my footstool.

What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord.

     Or where will my resting place be?

50 Has not my hand made all these things?”

And Paul told the Athenians: “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands” (Acts 17:24).

The early Christians never fought to gain control of the Jerusalem temple, even though the religious establishment or people there sometimes chased them away (Acts 8:1-2). Why did they not fight for it?

Jesus said that one (himself) had come who is greater than the temple made of stones in Jerusalem (Matt. 12:6), and the better temple was his body (John 2:19-21). The early church followed him in this teaching.

The author of Hebrews refers to an eternal tabernacle up in heaven, where bulls, calves, goats and heifers are not needed for sacrifice. Jesus’s sacrifice at the crucifixion replaced all of them (Hebrews 9:11-14). The author then contrasts Mt. Sinai with Jerusalem, but it is not the earthly city. “But you have come to Mt. Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Hebrews 12:22). Christians have a better covenant than the one laid down at Mt. Sinai (Hebrews 12:18-24). At Sinai, God’s voice shook the earth. But now he will shake the entire earth with a new kingdom. “We are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken” (Hebrews 12:28). The kingdom of humankind will fall apart, but God’s kingdom will endure forever. So the contrast is complete in Hebrews.

Further, Paul had a special relationship with Jerusalem. During his third missionary journey he felt a sense of urgency to go to the city by Pentecost, if possible (Acts. 20:16). The Christians there suffered from a famine, and Paul took up an offering for them and delivered it personally (Romans 15:25-29; 1 Corinthians 16:3). Yet his concern was not for the stones that made up the temple structure. Rather, he says the church is the temple, and God dwells in its midst. “You together are that temple” (1 Corinthians 3:16-17). “We are the temple of the living God” (2 Corinthians 6:16).

Peter agrees: “You also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).

In all these examples about the temple, the apostles took a physical structure and spiritualized it. Now the church, especially the far-flung gentiles (and Jewish Christians), does not have to focus on a geopolitical holy site and fight to get it back. It was replaced with the church, even before the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, by the Roman general Titus, just as Jesus had predicted (Matt. 24:2).

The church was given the mission to spread the gospel all around the world. The resurrected Jesus told them: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The mission radiated outward. The disciples were not to be attached to stones and cities in such a way that they would be distracted from their worldwide mission.

However, if Christians would like to take a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (or any church or Christian shrine), they may do so out of their own free will. But it is not required of them from New Testament Scripture. To repeat, they are not (or should not be) attached to stones or statues. Rather, they are under grace, not law.

Conclusion

To answer the question in the introduction to this article, the early church did not take “a slightly different path” from the kingdom message of Jesus. He separated the kingdom of God from the kingdom of Caesar. Also, he did not try to reestablish the theocratic kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6-7).

He set the institutional genetic code for his later disciples to follow, and Peter and Paul indeed followed him in their actions and policies in the book of Acts and in their theology in their epistles.

The early church had a strong need and motive to institute a policy of violence or at least one of self-defense in the face of its persecutors who often resorted to violence, like stoning. However, not one of them in all recorded early church history swung a sword to bloody people to get them to convert or prove the Christians were right. Instead, following Jesus the king who waged only spiritual and moral warfare, the apostles walked the same path in early church history. None of them mixed post-conquest tax policies, warfare, bloodshed, and the sword with religion.

Another important conclusion to draw from this article is that the church is not the state, and neither is the state the church. The two must be kept separate in their roles in society. God ordains the government as a whole institution, but that does not mean that it receives direct revelations from him.

Sometimes parts or all of it can go astray (e.g. a tyranny). So only in an indirect sense or in the big picture are members of law enforcement and the military servants of God, and, incidentally, members of other religions working in law enforcement and the military also become servants of God.

But Christians should not believe that these institutions are infallible. Therefore, in a direct and more significant sense Christians are servants of the Lord first, ahead of serving the state and must stand for righteousness.

The church as an institution is “pacifist” only in its own internal policies and actions, because it follows the dictates of the kingdom of God, his active rule and dynamic reign. That is, church leaders in the name of the church or of God should never convene a council or general assembly in order to raise a militia or an army to fight battles and to coerce heretics and sinners to conform.

However, the church violates its own Scriptures if it transfers this kingdom policy (only pacifism within itself) to the state, because the New Testament ordains that only the state may use the sword, if necessary and done lawfully. Christ’s and the apostles’ teaching hands the lawful and just sword over to the state (not the unjust or unlawful sword).

Christians may serve in the military or law enforcement – complete with weapons – because governing authorities have been ordained by God. If Christians choose to serve in this capacity, they must follow justice. But they must also develop good character, just as Cornelius the centurion did, a sword-carrying military man who prayed and followed righteousness and justice. It is best and less complicated to maintain the distinction between the private and public spheres while Christians work in institutions that permit wielding the sword. In private, Christians serve the Lord while they work, as all Christians do at any job.

Finally, Christians may use the law courts to defend themselves, just as Paul did during his arrests. They do not need to be passive in legal matters. However, it is better to find Christian lawyers and judges to adjudicate a dispute between other Christians in a court of arbitration (1 Corinthians 6:1-11). But if it is not available or the dispute is with unbelievers, then the state law courts are an option for believers. Presumably a Christian court of arbitration is open to unbelievers, if they want it.

But the court does not follow a Christian legal codebook of sorts. Rather, the court follows and submits to American law, while counseling the disputants about a better way, like settling the matter amicably, not adversatively.

EARLY MUSLIM COMMUNITY AND THE SWORD

What did the early Muslim community say about the sword?

After Muhammad died in A.D. 632, four caliphs, one after another, took over leadership of Islam: Abu Bakr (ruled 632-634), Umar (r. 634-644), Uthman (r. 644-656), and Ali (656-661).[1] They lived during Muhammad’s life, and he trained them.

These four rightly guided caliphs[2] never wrote Scriptures, but their words and deeds appear in various Islamic sources. The four are important because they eagerly searched the Quran and their memories of their deceased leader for guidelines on how to conduct Islamic war. Muhammad waged jihad and guided them (Quran 33:21). So they followed his example.

Further, the caliphs found commands in the Quran that showed them how to divide up the spoils of war, so the material aspect of early Islam is important as well. Succinctly said, religion and wealth (e.g. gold and silver in direct payment or taxes), weapons (e.g. swords and shields), commodities (e.g. grains and dates), and real property (e.g. farms and even cities), dominate the rule of the caliphs as Islam expanded by military conquest.

This article, naturally following the reigns of the four caliphs, is therefore concerned with the Quran as the inspiration for their conquests by the sword and with the resources that flowed back to Medina, the capital of early Islam.

Thus, what is a major theme here in this article is the caliphs’ referencing the Quran to justify their policies.

Abu Bakr

Abu Bakr (r. 632-34) is credited with being Muhammad’s closest companion. As the first caliph, he consolidated Islamic rule over the Arab peninsula, and he conquered large territories in Iraq, in the two years he ruled. We can get a sense of how he sought to implement the Quran’s call to jihad by the campaigns of Khalid al-Walid (d. 642), his competent and talented Meccan commander of the Muslim armies during the time of Muhammad and the first two caliphates. He was nicknamed the “Sword of Allah” or the “Drawn Sword of Allah” because of his brutality.[3] Only a sample of Abu Bakr’s and Khalid’s campaigns and policies can be mentioned.

Wars of Apostasy

In A.D. 632-633 Abu Bakr waged the Wars of Apostasy. Some tribes in Arabia had promised to adhere to Islam during the life of Muhammad, but after he died, they went back to their old ways, sensing Islam was weak. Abu Bakr vowed to show them they were wrong. One hadith says as follows:

When Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] died and Abu Bakr became the caliph some Arabs renegade [reverted to disbelief] [Abu Bakr decided to declare war against them], Umar, said to Abu Bakr, "How can you fight with these people although Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered [by Allah] to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever said it then he will save his life and property from me except on trespassing the law... and his accounts will be with Allah."’ Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight those who differentiate between the prayer and the zakat, as zakat is the compulsory right to be taken from the property [according to Allah's orders], by Allah! If they refuse to pay me even a she-kid which they used to pay at the time of Allah's Apostle, I would fight with them for withholding it."

Umar, soon to be the second caliph, responds that this policy came from Allah.

Then Umar said... "Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision [to fight] and I came to know that his decision was right."[4]

This entire hadith echoes Quran 9:33, 61:9, 48:28 (three identical verses), 2:193, 8:39-41, 9:29, and especially 9:5. All of them speak of fighting until Islam prevails, but 9:5 discusses battling specific pagans until they pay the zakat or charity tax. In the command to fight the pagans (9:5) the fighting can only cease when the pagans (1) repent, (2) establish the Islamic prayer, and (3) pay the zakat. Now that these tribes refused the third of the three conditions they are considered basically like pagans again (as they refuse to obey an important obligation of Allah in Islam); then the command to fight them becomes applicable again.

Abu Bakr sent open letters[5] to the apostates or rebels of every Arab tribe, so that they may be warned before battle erupts. After he explains Islam’s theology, which all religions have a right to do – preach – he then informs the tribes what will happen in practical terms. If they return to Islam, they will not be killed. If they refuse, Khalid will not spare them, but may burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means, and take the women and children captive.

I [Abu Bakr] ordered [Khalid] not to fight anyone or to kill anyone until he has called him to the cause of God [Islam]; so that those who renounce [unbelief] and do good works [my envoy] shall accept him and help him to [do right], but I have ordered him to fight those who deny [Him, i.e. God] for that reason. So he will not spare any one of them he can gain mastery over, [but may] burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means, and take women and children captive; nor shall he accept from anyone anything except Islam.[6]

Sometimes this policy required fierce battles for Khalid to wage. For example, the conquest of a so-called false prophet Musaylimah and his tribe in al-Yamamah, an oasis district in central eastern Arabia, many miles east of Medina where Abu Bakr was headquartered, takes up to over thirty pages to recount in an early Islamic history, with bloody battles.[7]

The narrative about the Muslims conquering Uman (Oman) takes only four pages. The conclusion of the fighting is offered here because it represents the slaughter that occurs elsewhere in the history of Islam’s reconquest of Arabia, or sometimes the conquest of an area for the first time.

God strengthened the people of Islam through [reinforcements], and weakened through them the polytheists; so the polytheists turned their backs in flight, so that 10,000 of them were killed in the battle. (The Muslims) pursued them so that they made great slaughter among them and took the offspring prisoner and divided flocks among the Muslims. They sent a fifth of the booty to Abu Bakr[8]....

As Abu Bakr promised in his open letters, “slaughter” subdues the enemies of Islam, the children are led away into captivity, and the spoils are divided up among the jihadists or qitalists, one-fifth of which is sent back to Medina so that Abu Bakr can run the burgeoning state of Islam, in accordance with the Quran, modeled on the Battle of Badr in 624, when his prophet was alive and Quran 8:41 was revealed. As we shall see over and over again, this verse tells how the spoils of war were to be divided: one-fifth goes to the state and four-fifths go to the warriors or jihadists.

However, some tribes saw the wisdom of returning to Islam without struggle, such as the Amir, located in northern and west-central Arabia. Observing the subjugation of their neighbors, “they gave [Abu Bakr] their hands to Islam,” referring to the traditional hand clasp symbolizing the oath of allegiance.[9] So they accepted the first option in the open letter, accepting Islam and paying the zakat tax.

Next, Khalid wrote up a truce for the Hanifah tribe in Arabia, outlining what the tribe owes Islam so that it does not attack them. One leader is hesitant, but the other one says the tribe should give in to Islam, so that Muslims do not demand the tribe’s womenfolk in marriage:

[Khalid] bound them to [payment of] gold, silver, half the captives, suits of mail, horses, a garden in every village, and a farm on condition that they embrace Islam. Then you will be secure in God’s safety, you will have the protection of Khalid b. Al-Walid and the protection of Abu Bakr, successor of the Apostle of God [Muhammad] and the protections of the Muslims in good faith.” A leader of the tribe was hesitant, but another one stepped forward and advised them to accept the truce “before the women are carried off against their will on the backs of horses and are taken to wife without being demanded in marriage. So they obeyed him [the second leader]... and accepted his decision.[10]

This tribe accepted their status as living under the “protection” of Islam. But they must pay up in gold and silver and other material things.

Similarly, Abu Bakr writes to the people of Najran in southwest Arabia:

... To the people of Najran... he [Muhammad] affords them protection from his army and himself and decrees for them the protection of Muhammad, except that which Muhammad the Apostle of God had revoked on God’s command regarding their lands and the lands of the Arabs, that two religions should not dwell in them.[11]

Abu Bakr goes on to outline what is protected, like the flocks and herds and church buildings and monks, but the people must be loyal to Islam, even to recruit soldiers to subdue the other tribes. The last clause about no two religions dwelling in Arabia shows that this dhimmi citizenship will not last, for Umar (the second caliph) will drive Jews and Christians out of the country in 635.

Abu Bakr’s Islamic Armies March Northward

Islam does not stay in the Arabian peninsula, but marches northward into Iraq, Jordan, and Syria. In Ullays, on the Euphrates River, Iraq, Khalid vows that he will make a nearby canal flow with the blood of polytheists.

The Muslims raged against them. Khalid said: “O God, if You deliver their shoulders to us, I will obligate myself to You not to leave any one of them whom we can overcome until I make their canal run with blood.” Then God defeated them for the Muslims and gave them their shoulders to them... As a result, the cavalry brought prisoners in droves, driving them along. Khalid has detailed certain men to cut off their heads in the canal. He did that to them for a day and a night ... And Khalid cut off their heads... Khalid had blocked up the canal, but he released the waters, and the blood flowed. Owing to this, it has been called Blood Canal to this day.[12]

Early Muslims looked to the Quran and Abu Bakr for inspiration and the will to fight. In 634 at Yarmuk River, on the Syrian and Jordanian border, a reciter of the Quran followed Muhammad’s custom after the Battle of Badr and quoted from memory Quran 8, which, as noted, deals with the aftermath of Badr, in order to inspire the jihadists before the clash of arms. “The people did not cease doing this [listening to or reciting Quran 8] after that.” Interestingly the ordinary soldiers titled this chapter of the Quran “Jihad.” Its name is actually “Spoils” of war.[13]

In addition to Quran 8, the entire chapter, as a source of inspiration, in a short sermon Abu Bakr says rewards in the afterlife are a motive to wage jihad:

Indeed, the reward in God’s book for jihad in God’s path is something for which a Muslim should love to be singled out. It is a commerce that God has pointed out, by which God has saved [people] from humiliation, and through which He has bestowed nobility in this world and the next.[14]

He offers the Quran’s trade of this life for the next, in an economic bargain or “commerce” and in the context of jihad. Quran 61:1-12, 4:74, and 9:111 also speak of a deadly economic bargain with Allah, and the soldier’s life is the currency.

However, this offer of martyrdom may or may not be enough to get young Muslims to sign up for and launch their military campaigns. The poll (submission) tax, called the jizyah, was also a motive. This money flowed back to Medina. In the next passage, Khalid lays down the terms of surrender to the governor of al-Hirah, a city along the Euphrates River in Iraq. Khalid is sent to call people to Islam or pay a tax while living under Islamic rule as protected citizens. If not, they must face an army that loves death as much as other people love life. Khalid says:

"I call you to God and to Islam. If you respond to the call, you are Muslims: You obtain the benefits they enjoy and take up the responsibilities they bear. If you refuse, then [you must pay] the jizyah. If you refuse the jizyah, I will bring against you tribes of people who are more eager for death than you are for life. We will fight you until God decides between us and you."[15]

The option to pay the jizyah or tribute tax recalls Quran 9:29, which offers this payment plan. Further, this love of death reflects Quran 3:143, the context of which is the Battle of Uhud in 625, led by Muhammad. The verse says, “Before you [Muslims] encountered death you were hoping for it.”

When Khalid perceived that his Muslim soldiers desired to return to Arabia, he pointed out how luscious the land of the Persians was:

"Do you not regard [your] food like a dusty gulch? By God, if struggle for God’s sake and calling [people] to God were not required of us, and there were no consideration except our livelihood, the wise opinion would [still] have been to strike this countryside until we possess it"[16]....

It was up to the Muslims to take possession of it. Accordingly, money and resources must not go back only to Medina. The soldiers could get as high as eighty percent of the spoils of war immediately after a conquest.

In Ayn al-Tamr, Iraq, Khalid won another battle and “beheaded all the men of the fortress and took possession of all that their fortress contained, seizing as spoils what was in it.” The account continues:

Khalid found in their church forty boys who were studying the Gospels behind a locked door, which he broke down in getting to them. He asked, “Who are you?” They replied, “Hostages.” He divided them among the Muslims who had performed outstandingly in battle.[17]

Apparently one of the conditions of Quran 9:29 had been carried out. If the People of the Book (in this case Christians) fight, then they will be killed. Other Quranic passages say that the women could be taken as slaves (see Quran 4:3, 24). These boys were divided up as the human spoils of war. Recall that Quran 33:25-27 refers to the Battle of the Trench in 627. Muhammad sold Jewish women and children into slavery after that battle.

Not too long after this victory in Ayn al-Tamr, Khalid found another human spoil. “The Muslims rushed upon the enemy, killing the troops and making captives of the children ... Khalid purchased the daughter of al-Judi who[se beauty] was extolled” in the Dumah tribe, also in Iraq.[18] Her father had been killed.

To conclude this section on Abu Bakr, he ruled only two years after Muhammad’s death, but he subdued the tribes in Arabia and sent military excursions into Iraq and as far away as Syria. He depended heavily on the Quran and Muhammad’s example to guide him.[19]

He died in 634. One account says the cause of death was poison put in a grain of rice by the Jews, while another version omits this.[20] Either way, the Islamic sources agree that he died of a sickness and a fever.[21] He left behind four wives and many children.[22]

Umar

On the death of Abu Bakr, Umar (r. 634-644) became the second caliph. Considered uncompromising and even violent, instituting the policy of carrying a whip,[23] he and his armies conquered vast territories, such as Jerusalem, Syria, Iraq, parts of Egypt, and Libya, with surprising rapidity.

In the lengthy hadith quoted above about Abu Bakr’s reason for fighting the Arab tribes, Umar said:

... Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision [to fight] and I came to know that his decision was right.

Thus Umar determined to carry on where Abu Bakr left off, until Islam prevails over all religions (and Medina got even richer).[24]

Umar’s Military Successes in Iraq

First he had to take over Iraq from the Persians. Then, he went east to invade Persia itself (modern Iran). The motive, in addition to religion, is clear. On the eve of Islamic conquests of Persia, Umar “gave the army permission to penetrate into Persia to wrest from Yazdagird his imperial possessions.”[25] Yazdagird was the Persian king.

The first thing Umar did was to rally the troops to fight the Persians who had controlled large territories in Iraq. He also insisted that the people swear an oath of allegiance to him. Umar then stood up and gave this speech:

The Hijaz is not a home for you except for foraging; its inhabitants do not survive in it except by that. Where are the impulsive migrants for the sake of God’s promise? Travel in the land that God has promised you in the Book to make you heirs to, for He has said, “That he may make it [Islam] triumph over all religion.” God is the one who grants victory to His religion, strengthens His helper, and commits to His people of inheritances of the nations. Where are the righteous worshippers of God?[26]

The Hijaz is the region where Medina is located and the early Muslims were headquartered. It was not sufficient for all of them – Muslims, Christians, and Jews. So Umar needed to expel the Jews and Christians out of the area, and he required the Muslims to go north and fight in the land that he says Allah promised to Islam. Then the Muslims could have the newly conquered territory. The clause that says Islam “must triumph over all religion” is a quotation of Quran 9:33, 61:9, and 48:28, all of which also promise Islam’s ultimate triumph over all other religions.

On the same theme, a Muslim commander stood up before an assault by the light cavalry and told them that Allah has given them “the upper hand.” This is a quotation of Quran 3:139 and 47:35, which also says true believers have the upper hand. The historical context of the verse in Chapter 3 refers to the Battle of Uhud, in 625, when Muhammad was alive. And Quran 47 can be titled “Muhammad” or “War” (Qital), and it deals with various issues of warfare.

However, Allah's will may not be enough to inspire the Muslim soldiers to fight. Material possessions have to be brought into the reward system. The commander goes on to say that Allah has given them permission to fight the Persians. He says, “You have the upper hand and God is with you. If you stand firm and fight them with courage, their property, their women, their sons, and their country will be yours.”[27] The upper hand refers to Quran 3:139 and 47:5, both chapters appearing the context of war and promising Islam the upper hand.

Though Islam at this time in its history won many more battles than it lost, it did not always win. In the Battle of al-Qarqus, on the west bank of the Euphrates, in Iraq, the Muslims had to retreat. Umar quotes Quran 8:16, which says that if a Muslim turns back, except for a battle maneuver or to rejoin a company, he will have Allah’s wrath on him. Umar told the retreating Muslims that he was their company, so Allah was not angry with them.[28]

During the long campaign against Qadisiyyah, a Persian city a little to the west of the Euphrates, in central Iraq, Umar, following his prophet Muhammad and Abu Bakr who sent letters to various leaders forewarning them of impending doom if they do not accept Islam or pay a tax, told his Muslim commanders to meet with the Persian king and invite him to accept Islam. They first told the king that Islam is wonderful. Then they spelled out the practical choices.

Then he [Muhammad] ordered us to start with the nations adjacent to us and invite them to justice. We are therefore inviting you to embrace our religion... If you refuse our invitation, you must pay the poll tax. This is a bad thing, but not as bad as the alternative if you refuse [to pay,] it will be war. If you respond and embrace our religion, we shall leave you with the Book of God [the Quran]... we shall leave your country and let you deal with its affairs as you please. If you protect yourself against us by paying the poll tax, we shall accept it from you and ensure your safety. Otherwise we shall fight you![29]

Justice in this case means Islam. If a country refuses Islam, it refuses justice, and an unjust country deserves to be attacked, to rescue its citizens. The poll (submission) tax protects the Persians from Islam.

Later in the lengthy Qadisiyyah campaign, Sad, Umar’s lead commander, sent impressive looking men to a Persian general representing the king and also invited the Persians to Islam.[30] A Muslim spokesman told the general:

One of the ideas he [Muhammad] brought from our Lord was to wage war against those who were closer to us first. We acted upon it among ourselves and saw that there was no turning away from what he had promised us... Now we came to you by order of our Lord, fighting for his sake... We call upon you to embrace Islam and to accept its authority. If you agree, we will let your alone... If you refuse, the only permissible thing for us to do is to engage you in battle unless you ransom yourselves by paying the poll tax. If you pay this, well and good; if not, then God has already bequeathed to us your country, your sons, and your property.[31]

Both passages of forewarning and options reflect Quran 9:29, and apparently it could apply in certain cases to people who were not of the Book, the Bible (Jews and Christians).[32] In the context of the second passage, the Persian spokesman asked the Muslim why the Arabs have come here and attacked; what justifies Islam’s aggression? The Muslim spokesman explained that Allah sent a messenger (Muhammad) to the Arabs, and he called them to fight.[33] The Muslims were sent by Allah.

Further, both passages say that Muhammad told his followers to wage war against those who were nearest them. Surely this parallels Quran 9:123, which says, “You who believe, fight [q-t-l] the disbelievers near you and let them find you standing firm” ....

In the Qadisiyyah campaign Sad sent the Muslims out in raiding parties before the final victory. After a victory by a raiding party, they yelled, “God is most great!” Or “Allahu Akbar!” This turned into a battle cry before or after the fight, inspiring the jihadist. Sad also distributed one-fifth share of the booty to the people and four-fifths to the soldiers. Ordinarily the one-fifth went to the leader or back to Medina (Quran 8:41), but he was generous.[34] One or two times Umar permitted this policy of dividing the spoils of war among the soldiers without regard to the resources for Medina,[35] but he will institute a more Quranic plan during and after his conquest of Jerusalem, which was one-fifth to Medina, four-fifths to the soldiers.[36]

The Quran inspired the soldiers before fighting in skirmishes. Sad ordered the noon prayers and a Quran reader to recite Chapter 8 for the soldiers, a long passage glorifying Muhammad’s surprise victory at Badr in 624. The soldiers, as they did in the caliphate of Abu Bakr, also called this chapter “Jihad,” but its name is formally “the Spoils” (of War). “The hearts and eyes of the people became cheerful, and in reading this surah [chapter] they experienced repose.”[37] Sad yelled, “God is most great!” while the Muslims prepared for battle.[38] After the victory at Qadisiyyah, Sad wrote Umar a letter announcing the good news. On the night before the battle, Sad says, the Muslims “were whispering the Quran, humming like bees.”[39]

Islam was at last victorious in Qadisiyyah. The victory opened up other doors to the east, namely to India. Umar told Utbah b. Ghawan that he would be appointed the governor of “the land of India.”[40] Again, Umar told him to invite the people to Islam. He follows the same pattern as Quran 9:29: invite people to Islam – acceptance of it means acceptance from Islam – refusal leads to humiliation and poll tax – refusal to pay – leads to sword.

Umar writes his appointed ruler: “Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency.”[41]

Umar Conquers Jerusalem

The real prize, theologically speaking, was the conquest of Jerusalem. It cannot really be called a conquest in the sense of fierce fighting. The Muslims had piled victory after victory, so the Byzantine empire, which had controlled the city, was too weak to resist, not to mention the city itself.

Yet, Umar himself made the trip up to Jerusalem because one of his commanders had besieged it, and it surrendered on the condition that Umar write the treaty personally.[42] The people of the city “made peace with Umar on the condition that they would pay the poll tax and opened up Jerusalem for him.”[43]

The conditions of peace were that the inhabitants got to keep their churches and rituals and crosses and religion without forcible conversion. “They will have to pay the poll tax.”[44] If some wish to depart to the Byzantine territory, they may do so safely. Umar led the Muslims in prayer the next morning. He recited Quran 38, the entire chapter, which talks about the prophets in the Old Testament, sometimes in a garbled form, for Muhammad picked up these stories from traveling poets and storytellers who wandered from city to city along the trade routes. But one thing was clear for Muhammad in that chapter: Islam is the better religion (Quran 38:29 and cf. 5:15-16).[45]

Umar’s Division of Spoils

Umar and Ali (the future fourth caliph, below) gathered the Muslim leaders and divided up the spoils of the conquests of Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Jerusalem. Those who accepted Islam the earliest, like the old Meccan tribes or the veterans of the Battle of Badr (A.D. 624) got the most money. Those who embraced Islam later, in chronological order, got a slightly reduced amount.

For example, the converts before Badr each got 5,000 dirhams, and those between that battle and the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (A.D. 628) got 4,000 each. If anyone fought in the battles in Iraq and Syria before Qadisiyyah, he was given 3,000. Those who fought at Qadisiyyah and in Syria got four-fifths of the spoils, divided up among them, based on Quran 8:41, Umar and Ali referencing it in their discussion. Those after that got 2,500.

Back in Medina, the wives of Muhammad were paid more than the soldiers, 10,000 each, though Aishah, his favorite, got 2,000 extra. The victors who moved to or remained in the newly conquered territories received a stipend of land. Umar was to get a modest amount, befitting his station as caliph. The poll tax was to go to those who administered the new Muslim areas.

Umar’s Bureaucracy

Because of these new conquests, a growing bureaucracy developed in Umar’s caliphate. As new territories were conquered, the bureaucracy grew proportionately. He introduced the military pay system. Those who joined Islam earlier got more than those who joined later.[46] Briefly said and regardless of the particulars, Islam became rich – richer than any time in its short history up to that point.[47]

Capture of the Emperor of Persia and Umar’s End

Finally, after only a short time of conquests, in 643-644, Yazdagird, the king of Persia, was killed, caught hiding in a mill. The Muslim commander sent a letter back to Umar, along with the one-fifth of the booty, telling him of the good news. Umar gathered the people of Medina together and announced that Allah had sent Muhammad “with guidance and the true religion, and that He might make it prevail over any [other] religion, even though the polytheists were adverse.” This verse is a quotation of Quran 9:33, 61:9, and 48:28.

Umar clearly links military conquests with Islam prevailing over all other religions, the ultimate goal of the new religion.[48]

That's a perfect description of a holy war.

Umar’s end came when a disgruntled slave protested Umar’s tax policies. Umar denied his request for relief. A few days later the slave stabbed him. See Part Ten for more details of his death.

Uthman

When Uthman (r. 644-656) took the reins of power as the third caliph, elected by a council, Islamic armies had taken over vast territories. Administering them would pose a challenge for him with their cross-currents and stresses and strains of different peoples and cultures and power grabs. The overwhelming impression of his caliphate is that he did not concern himself with vast conquests, though his troops waged jihad in the name of Islam and enlarged its territories. Nor did he keep quoting the Quran, though he did that.

For our purposes, the one main record of his regime does not show his soldiers offering the newly conquered cities and tribes death or taxes or conversion, though his generals did that too.

Rather, the main theme of his caliphate is that he unsuccessfully administered his domains.

Uthman’s Moral and Spiritual Life

On a spiritual and moral plane, Uthman lived piously, as much as a political leader can. In a sermon he said life is transitory and the world harbors deceit, so life should not deceive us and the deceitful one should delude about Allah, and wealth and sons may adorn life, but righteousness is better before Allah. He referenced Quran 31:33 and 33:5: “People, be mindful of your Lord and fear a day when no parent will take the place of their child, nor a child take the place of their [sic] parents, in any way. God’s promise is true, so do not let the present life delude you, nor the Deceiver delude you about God” (31:33); “Name your adopted sons after their real fathers: this is more equitable in God’s eyes – if you do not know what their fathers are [they are your] ‘brothers-in-religion and protégés’” ... (33:5).

Other Muslim leaders told their peoples to watch out for the deceitfulness and transitoriness of life, but Uthman emphasized it a little more than usual.[49]

Uthman regulated his married life. He married a Christian from the Kalb tribe (Iraqi), but they did not consummate the marriage until she converted to Islam.[50]

Finally, in a telling episode, he was careless about a very important signet ring. Muhammad himself had worn it. Uthman was twisting it on his finger while he was sitting by the edge of a well, but it fell in the water. Uthman’s servants and others searched for it and drained the well, but they could not find the ring. He ordered a new ring made and inscribed it with “Muhammad, Messenger of God.” After Uthman was assassinated, “the ring disappeared from his hand, and no one knows who had taken it.”[51]

This anecdote maybe has some truth in it, but even if it is a fiction, it surely was symbolic of his rule.

Uthman’s Bureaucracy

Administratively, he installed and removed many governors after a year of service,[52] but others for a lot longer duration.[53] Sometimes the governors met with resistance, assassinations or attempts at it, and even revolt.[54] Other times the people were pleased with their new rulers.[55] In his first letter to them he tells them to uphold justice and righteousness, but also to be a shepherd to the people. If the governors confront enemies, then they must look for aid from Allah.[56]

The caliph’s piety was important to him, but would it be enough to rule over the Islamic world?

That notion was soon tested. Uthman’s leadership encountered rebels who were hungry for revolution to replace him.

Three examples are important for the end of his reign.

First, in Egypt he stripped a governor of power, and the governor was “intensely angry and filled with hatred for Uthman,”[57] and the governor refused to relinquish control of the tax revenues. So Uthman sent troops from Arabia, especially the Muslims who converted early, to conquer Ifriqiyah, on the border of Tunisia (one had to pass through Egypt to get to Tunisia). Finally the old governor departed, while the new one was installed.[58]

The second example is a particularly unstable town, Kufah in southern Iraq. Governors came and went as people revolted; Uthman dismissed them, and rebels assassinated some leaders “with sword in hand.”[59]

Al-Walid, one of the governors, had to deal with a sorcerer who played tricks on people’s minds. An extra-devout Muslim killed him. Uthman wrote to the governor that he approved of the “divinely ordained penalty,” but it should have been carried out by the government.[60] However, al-Walid was accused of drinking alcohol, which is forbidden, so Uthmam summoned him and ordered him flogged.[61] Even after Uthman replaced him with men from Medina and Mecca, the affairs of Kufah remained in turmoil. They believed he favored certain men of his own tribe and other allies. The dissenters grew as the years passed, and they cursed Uthman.[62]

The third example is Basrah, a town also in southern Iraq. The same pattern developed. Rebels stirred up a segment of the population that festered even during the time of Ali, after Uthman, when they engaged in civil war with the fourth caliph.[63] Uthman exiled the Basran rebellious leaders to Syria. Maybe a partial reason for troubles dominating certain areas in Iraq is that Uthman had to settle veterans from Arabia, particularly the ones who converted to Islam early or fought at Qadisiyyah, but they had not migrated to Iraq. But his offer of land for cheap was generous, so they went. However, those who had not converted or fought opposed the chosen favorites. “Thus (the malcontents) were on the increase and the people were decreasing (in proportion). As a result evil prevailed.”[64]

Inevitably, comparisons with Uthman’s predecessor Umar were made. For example, money going to the favored few like Muhammad’s wives was doubled, and charity during Ramadan was increased.[65] He went beyond the second caliph.

Further, he enlarged the Kabah precinct, despite the protests of those living near it, for he destroyed their homes and put what money would have been owed them into the treasury. However, despite their vocal protests, Uthman told them that Umar had done the same thing, but they did not yell at him.[66]

Uthman’s Military and Spoils of War

Militarily, Islam advanced. Muslim attacked the Byzantines in the latter’s own territory.[67] Alexandria, Egypt denounced its treaty it made in the time of Umar, but it was reconquered.[68] Islam attacked the island of Cyprus until it was conquered and had to pay tribute.[69]

More conquests ensued. Islam consolidated Syria.[70] Islam won a sea battle over the Byzantines.[71] Islamic armies advanced in Iran and central Asia, and the new Muslim governors imposed a tribute that went to them and Medina.[72] Islam advanced in North Africa. The Muslims were planning to invade Spain[73] (but that would have to wait, when civil war loomed around the corner under Ali).

In various battles and victories, the spoils of war were divided according to the Quran’s injunction (8:41): one-fifth went to the state, and four-fifths to the soldiers.[74] But one commander gave the four-fifths to his favorite troops and excluded others from the rewards of war.[75] Yet Uthman imposed a relatively more unified policy: the Quranic injunction that one-fifth of the spoils went to the governors and back to Medina, and four-fifths to the soldiers.[76]

The treasury in Medina ran a surplus.

Revolt against Uthman

Uthman’s life came to an end when hundreds in a coalition of Iraqis (two factions, one of the Basrans, the other of the Kufans) and of Egyptians, led by Abu Bakr’s (the second caliph’s) son Muhammad,[77] camped out in Medina. They demanded justice, favorable treatment, and even his replacement with their favorites. They also wanted new governors to rule in their city or region.

Further, the rebels accused Uthman, as noted, of favoring a chosen few, so jealousy motivated them to oppose him. For the new caliph the Basrans wanted a man named Talhah, but his representatives shouted at them and drove them away, perhaps because Talhah could be rounded up and accused of treason, or perhaps he genuinely disliked the idea. The Kufans desired a leader named al-Zubayr, but his representatives also shouted at them and drove them away, perhaps for the same reasons, as the one for Talhah. The Egyptians demanded Ali, but his son Hasan, his representative, also shouted at them and drove them away, also for the same reasons.[78]

Rebuffed by their favorite would-be caliph, the rebels departed from Medina, but thought better of it and went back. Some of them surrounded and blocked the entrance to the mosque. They even threw rocks at Uthman while he was in the pulpit. He fell unconscious and was carried off to his house.[79]

In another instance Uthman again ascended the pulpit, and a rebel took the staff that Muhammad had carried, followed by Abu Bakr and Umar, and broke it over his knee.[80] They even accused Uthman of falling into error. He reassured them that he was an orthodox Muslim, by quoting Quran 9:33, 61:9, and 48:28: “It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to show that it is above all [other] religions, however much the idolaters hate it”[81] Uthman wrote letters to his allies asking for help. He likened his enemies to the Meccans who had surrounded Medina during the Battle of the Trench in A.D. 627 (cf. Quran 33:20-27).[82] But Muhammad was able to fend them off until they left after a month-long siege. Could Uthman do the same? A series of charges and counter charges ensued from all sides, but went nowhere. Various accounts say they besieged him for a number of days.

Then the Egyptian faction, led by Abu Bakr’s son, stabbed him. One account says Uthman was reading Quran 3:167, the context of which is the battle of Uhud, in 625. Another account says he was reading 20:1, which says: ...“It was not to distress you that We [Allah] sent down the Quran to you.”[83] Whichever passage he was reading, the Quran was stained with his blood.[84] See Part Ten for more details.

Uthman’s reign was punctuated with success from Islam’s point of view, for money kept flowing into the treasury in Medina from the conquests and tribute payments. He led his religion to a surplus. However, his administration was weaker than Umar’s, so Uthman had some failures in his administration of the vast Islamic territories. His deficiencies – which boiled down to a lack of strong control over the realm and its governors and rebels – led to his downfall. He left behind many wives and children.[85]

Ali

Ali (r. 656-661) was Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law; he had married Muhammad’s daughter Fatima. He was elected to the caliphate when Uthman was assassinated, but two major revolts broke out shortly after that. So his caliphate is not concerned so much with the expansion of Islam as it is with his survival by the sword.

Battle of the Camel

The first revolt was led by Aishah, the favorite wife and now widow of Muhammad. She was joined by Talhah and al-Zubayr, as they left the Hijaz (region around Medina) and arrived in Basrah, where they set up their base. They blamed Ali for Uthman’s death, though indirectly by Ali’s passivity, and opposed his ascendancy to the caliphate after Uthman.

Even though she heard that the council voted for Ali, she nonetheless said, “The fact that Uthman has been killed unjustly and that as long as the mob rules order will not be established. Seek revenge for the blood of Uthman, and you will strengthen Islam!”[86] Then she added: “March therefore... we hope Almighty and Glorious Allah will help Uthman get their blood revenge speedily.”[87]

Ali went to Kufah and raised an army to confront them, which took place in A.D. 656 and is called the Battle of the Camel because Aishah was on an armored camel and rallied her troops from her position on the animal. The revolt was crushed. Ali killed his two rivals Talhah and al-Zubayr,[88] but he lamented the war that pitted Muslim against Muslim.[89]

As an earthly reward, however, Ali investigated the treasury in Basrah and found 600,000 dirhams. He divided it up among those who fought on his side, giving each 500. He appointed governors over Egypt, Barsrah, and Kufah and told each of them to collect the land tax.[90]

Ali’s use of the Quran around the time of the Battle of the Camel is mainly (but not entirely) benign. Nearly every verse is found in the Meccan chapters of the Quran, when his prophet Muhammad was militarily weak and had to promote peace in Mecca. Yet, sometimes these chapters also promise calamity and hell, but this is done by Allah’s sovereignty, not by a human army – certainly not by a Muslim army in the original context of the verses.

However, Ali is about to wage war, so he has to appeal to the jihad verses too, located in the Medinan chapters, when his leader Muhammad was building up his military from raiders to an army based in Medina. From both of these chapters, Ali, first, cites verses that speak of Allah’s support in the context of the Battle of Badr in A.D. 624. “Remember when you were few ... but God sheltered you and strengthened you with His help”[91] (Quran 8:26). This verse is more peaceful than one would expect, while the revolt against Ali was just getting underway thirty-two years later in A.D. 656. However, Quran 47 can be titled either “Muhammad” or “War.” Ali quotes a verse from this chapter just before going to Basrah to fight: “You who believe! If you help God, He will help you and make you stand firm”[92] (Quran 47:7). Ali’s allies and enemies could not fail to connect Quran 47 with war.

Next, still heading toward Basrah to fight, Ali expressed regret that Muslim had to fight Muslim, but Allah would decide. “No misfortune can happen, either in the earth or in yourselves, that was not set down in writing before We [Allah] brought it into being”[93] ... (Quran 57:22). When allies wanted to join him, he was happy and said, “Those believers who stay at home, apart from incapacity, are not equal to those who commit themselves and their possessions to striving [jihad] in God’s way – although He has promised all believers a good reward, those who strive [jihad] are favored with a tremendous reward above those who stay at home”[94] (Quran 4:95).

Further, when the people of Basrah were afraid that their defeat would be followed by Ali killing their men and taking their women as slaves, he reassures them that this is allowed only for disbelievers or pagans.

22 You [Prophet] are not there to control them. 23 As for those who turn away and disbelieve [infidels], God will inflict the greatest torment upon them[95] (Quran 88:22-23).

Another example of Ali’s use of the Quran is in the context of Abu Musa’s governorship over Kufah. Ali needed him to muster some troops for battle, but Abu Musa delayed. Ali quotes Quran 17:18, which promises hell.

If anyone desires [only] the fleeting life, We [Allah] speed up whatever We will in it, for whoever We wish; in the end We have prepared Hell for him in which to burn, disgraced and rejected[96] (Quran 17:18).

Ali intends to talk his enemies into swearing allegiance to him and not break their oaths. So he quotes Quran 16:92, which says that people should not deceive each other with their oaths, like a woman who undoes her thread, though it was tightly woven.[97]

After the battle, Ali says that those who suffer calamity will be rewarded by Allah.

Whatever misfortune befalls you [people], it is because of what your own hands have done – God forgives much[98] (Quran 42:30).

Finally, in Ali’s long letter to the people of Egypt, in which he recounts the recent events and tells the people of Egypt that he is in charge, and which the new governor reads to them, Ali quotes Quran 12:18, 52-53, 21:112, and 3:173. Each verse says Allah is their helper, an excellent guardian and sufficiency. Verses 52-53 are about Joseph, the second in command of Egypt, according to Genesis 37-50, so the meaning is that the new governor is to rule in an appropriate manner.[99]

All of these examples of Ali quoting the Quran show that he was mostly (but not completely) patient with his Muslims opponents, probably because Aishah was leading them. He too wanted to exact revenge on Uthman’s murderers, whom he regarded as Talhah and al-Zubayr, though it was the Egyptian faction who killed him. Also, he lamented Muslim killing Muslim. Nonetheless, Ali maintained his caliphate by the sword.

A question emerged among his soldiers who wanted more spoils. Why would not the Muslims who fought for Ali get the money and human slaves from the enemy? He replied that their enemies, now defeated friends, are like the victors; they are all Muslims, implying they are not pagans: “Those who fought you are like you ... Those who make peace with us are one with us, and we are one with them, but, for those who persist until they get struck by us, I fight them to the death. You are in no need of their fifth.”[100]

Recall that one-fifth of the spoils of war went to the leadership and the government. It was at this moment that the secessionists – those who were about to separate from Ali a year later – “began talking among themselves.”[101] That is, they began to be disgruntled with him.

Revolt at Siffin

The second revolt happened in A.D. 657, in Siffin, northern Iraq. Muawiyah, based in Syria, ostensibly intended to avenge Uthman’s death, and he had to go through Ali to do it. Muawiyah really wanted the caliphate.

After several months of fighting Ali seemed to be on the verge of winning, until Muawiyah’s men pierced pages of the Quran on their spears[102] and summoned both sides to a council. Some extra-devout Muslims in Ali’s camp, called the Kharijites, agreed and said the Quran alone has authority. Ali and Muawiyah talked via their representatives, but one of Ali’s arbitrators was unwise, while Muawiyah’s was wise, so Ali’s representative declared Muawiyah the caliph. Muawiyah was to rule Syria and Ali over Iraq.[103]

Ali refused to recognize the decision, but did not fight and went back to Kufah. On the way back from northern Iraq, the Kharijites changed their mind and encouraged Ali to fight. He said he could not. They separated from him. Then he fought and crushed them at the Battle of the Canal in A.D. 657, promising extra monetary reward for anyone who would fight them.[104] Only a small number of them survived.

The frequency of Ali’s use of the Quran increased greatly throughout this second revolt. We cannot discuss each one here, but only a sample of the Medinan chapters. In one of Ali’s motivational speeches before a skirmish with Muawiyah, he told his men to fight “with swords and staves, wrestling, biting, and grappling.” Then he quotes the Quran “Stand firm and frequently mention the name of God so that you might prosper. And do not contend one with another and so lose courage and your strength expire; be steadfast for God is with the steadfast” (Quran 8:45-46).[105]

In another motivational speech, Ali quotes from Quran 61:4: “God truly loves those who fight in solid lines for His cause, like a well-compacted wall.”[106] Next, in the middle of fighting the Syrians, Ali needed to rally a flagging section of his troops, so he quotes Quran 2:250, which speaks of David and Goliath, and 3:147, which is in the context of Muhammad’s fight at the Battle of Uhud in 625 and speaks of Allah making the soldiers’ feet firm in battle.[107]

Some of the enemy troops in the heat of battle insulted Ali to his face. He tells his men that the dignity of Islam is under assault, so his men should “attack them!” Quoting Quran 9:32 and 61:8, two verses appearing in the context of war, he further says they have raised war against his side and are putting out the light of Allah. The next verses talk about Islam gaining the upper hand over all other religions.[108] That is a perfect description of a holy war.

Further, Christians should be maintained as dhimmis (second-class citizens) and pay the jizyah or poll (submission) tax, a clear reference to Quran 9:29.[109] Finally, at every turn Ali says jihad is part of life and so is performing good deeds and earning rewards by waging it, ideas that are found in Quran 61:10-12.[110]

10 You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle [j-h-d] for His cause with your possessions and your persons – that is better for you, if only you knew – 12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph.[111] (Quran 61:10-12)

During Ali’s complicated conflict with Muawiyah, the Najiyah tribe also revolted against Ali. He called them to dialogue, but to no avail. He compared them to Thamud, an ancient tribe that was swept away in divine punishment (Quran 11:95). The Najiyah were also about to be swept away. He then compared them to the Meccans at the Battle of Badr in A.D. 624, who follow Satan (Quran 8:48).[112]

Ali’s commander met the tribe and discovered three kinds of Christians among them. One group concluded their religion was the best, so they held to it; a second group converted to Islam and remained in their new religion. The third group converted to Islam, did not like it because it practiced violence, especially during the bloody civil war that Ali waged, so they went back to their original religion. The commander asked them to return to Islam, but they refused. So he laid out a plan to kill them and take their dependents captive. Apostates – those who leave a religion, Islam in this case – must die and their families punished.[113]

With all the battles and the first Civil War in Islam it should not be surprising that Ali was assassinated.[114] For more details on his death, see Part Ten.

Brief Timeline

How did the early Muslim community carry out the Quran’s vision and guidance? When they waged war, how far did they get? We limit the chronology up to the time Ali was assassinated in 661 and a little beyond. From Islam’s point of view the armies were successful.

In 632-633 under the caliphate of Abu Bakr (r. 632-634), the armies reconquer and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. This is known as the Wars of Apostasy.

In 633-634 Kuwait and parts of Iraq are conquered, the armies going as far north as Jordan and Syria.

In 635 under the caliphate of Umar (r. 634-644), Muslims besiege and conquer of Damascus. In the same year Jews and Christians are expelled from Arabia.

In 636 Muslims defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

In 637 they conquer Iraq at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah against the Persian Sassanids (some date it in 635 or 636).

In 638 they conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines. Umar orders the clearing of the temple, such as it was, perhaps a reference to Jesus’s clearing the temple.

In 640 they begin the conquest of Egypt. In 641 they control Syria and Palestine. In 642, the Persians are defeated.

In 649 Cyprus is conquered.

Under the caliphate of Umar and Uthman (r. 644-656) in 638 to 650 they conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

In 657, while Ali (r. 656-661) was caliph, at the Battle of Siffin, fought between Muslim factions, there is a stalemate.

From 643 to 707 Muslims conquer North Africa.[115]

Conclusion

To wrap up this long article in the series, Muhammad set the institutional genetic code. He waged wars to get the pagan black stone[116] encased in the Kabah shrine in Mecca, and at the same time he got the spoils of war, to boot. Passages in the Quran, specifically the Medinan chapters, reflect this rise to military might and political power.

After his death, early Muslims were very eager to follow his Quran and example. Carrying forward his policies, the four so-called rightly guided caliphs sent Islamic armies on the march, conquering vast territories.

The campaigns, jihad verses, and the other topics in this chapter match up closely with the topics in the chapters on Muhammad’s mission and the Quran.

The mosque and state were embodied in the caliphs. They led prayers at the mosque and religious pilgrimages to Mecca one moment and then in the next flogged a governor for disobeying their words. Umar was the one who instituted carrying the whip. The caliphs flogged ordinary people often enough, one time even his own son for drinking.[117] However, it must also be noted that Islam could use persuasion and preaching to get people to convert. But the problem is that its armies were so active and had advanced so far that it is difficult to figure out when people exercised complete freedom of conscience to convert. Islam wielded the sword to spread its message.[118]

In nearly all of these battles and conquests the four caliphs, their governors, and generals sent letters to the non-Islamic tribal chiefs, governors, kings and potentates, laying down the terms: fight and die; surrender and pay a jizyah tax; or convert to Islam, and being a part of the Islamic state, pay taxes. These options resemble the ones in Quran 9:29. The caliphs worked hard at applying them, directed at the People of the Book. But sometimes the caliphs applied them to polytheists as well. It was a lucrative policy not to annihilate polytheists who refused to convert to Islam outside of the Arab peninsula, because they could work the land and pay various taxes. Dead people could not do that.

In the vast majority of cases, none of these peoples attacked Islam first. The territories in Iran, North Africa, and Cyprus, for example, never initiated war. The four caliphs looked around for a reason to start a fight and could usually conjure one up, but there is a religious motive at the core of their calculations. The motive to attack is found in Quran 9:33, 61:9, and 48:28, all three identical verses, which say that Islam would emerge victorious over all other religions. The caliphs used the three passages to justify their aggression. The people of Armenia, for instance, were said to be “unbelievers.”[119] Truthfully, however, Armenia was the first nation to embrace Christianity. No matter.

Islam must prevail or get the upper hand over them and their religion. Islam represents justice. Any society that does not embrace Islam is unjust. And an unjust society must be attacked, in order to bring justice to it and rescue the people who live in darkness, even if they are People of the Book – not to mention polytheists (Quran 5:15-16).[120]

[1] “Caliph” means “successor,” “deputy,” or “representative.” For the relevant use of the word “caliph” (kh-l-f) in the Quran, see, e.g., 2:30; 6:156; 7:69, 74, 142, 169; 10:14, 73; 19:59; 27:62; 35:39; and 38:26.The basic material on the four caliphs can be found in various encyclopedia or dictionaries on Islam. These will do: Cyril Glassé, The New Encyclopedia of Islam, rev. ed. (New York: Alta Mira P, 2001); Jonathan Esposito, ed. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, (New York: Oxford UP, 2003). H.A.R. Gibbs and J.H. Kramers, ed. Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, 4th impression (Boston: Brill Academic, 2002). Thomas Patrick Hughes, Dictionary of Islam (Chicago: Kazi, 1994, 1886).

[2] The first three caliphs are not acknowledged by Shia Muslims, who regard only Ali as the rightful caliph.

[3] Tabari, the Conquest of Saudi Arabia, vol. 10, trans. Fred Donner, (Albany: SUNYP, 1993), 102; idem, the Challenge to the Empires, vol. 11, trans. Khalid Yahya Blankinship, (Albany: SUNYP, 1993), 95-96. And we may as well list the other volumes used in the excellent series of Tabari’s histories: idem, The Battle of al-Qadisiyyah and the Conquest of Syria and Palestine, vol. 12, trans. Yohannan Friedmann, (Albany: SUNYP, 1992); idem, The Conquest of Iraq, Southwestern Persia, and Egypt, vol. 13, trans. H.A. Juynboll (Albany: SUNYP, 1989); idem, The Conquest of Iran, vol. 14, trans. G. Rex Smith, (Albany: SUNYP, 1994); idem, The Crisis of the Early Caliphate, vol. 15, trans. R. Stephen Humphreys, (Albany, SUNYP, 1990); idem, The Community Divided, vol. 16, trans. Adrian Brockett (Albany: SUNYP, 1997); idem, The First Civil War, vol. 17, trans. G. R. Hawting (Albany: SUNYP, 1996). Tabari should be used with caution. However, this article paints in broad brush strokes, dealing with big-picture topics like the expansion of Islam, how the spoils of war were divided up, the caliphs’ use of the Quran, their conquests, and the ends of their reigns. The dictionaries and encyclopedias referenced above cover these basic topics too.

[4] Bukhari, Dealing with Apostates, 9.6924 (cf. 9.6925). An apostate is someone who leaves a religion. The text in brackets is the translator’s; the excerpt has been edited a little, like the modifying punctuation and changing parentheses to brackets. My only comment in brackets is after the “Apostle of God”: “Muhammad.”

[5] In sending letters Abu Bakr follows Muhammad, who also did the same before he waged war (Bukhari, Jihad, 4.2939-41; Muslim, Jihad and Expeditions, 3.4380-83).

[6] 10.57. These words in brackets are mine: “Abu Bakr,” “Khalid,” “Islam,” and “i.e. God.” The other words in brackets are the translator’s.

[7] Ibid. 10.41-42, 53-54, and 105-34, and so on.

[8] Ibid. 10.154. The word in brackets is added; the words in parentheses are the translator’s. Other passages show Abu Bakr dividing up the spoils according the Quran 8:41: e.g. 10.188.

[9] Ibid. 10.76.

[10] Ibid 10.131.

[11] Ibid. 10.163-64.

[12] Ibid. 11.24.

[13] Ibid. 11.94.

[14] Ibid. 11.80.

[15] Tabari 11.4. Khalid offers the same Quranic conditions for the towns in al-Sawad (in alluvial plains, especially central of Iraq) called Baniqa, Barusma, and Ullays (11.3) and the Christians of Yarmuk (11.96).

[16] Ibid. 11.20.

[17] Ibid. 11.55.

[18] Ibid. 11.59-60.

[19] The Quranic verses appearing in Tabari 10.55-57 are quoted in Abu Bakr’s letter to the apostates before he attacked them. Abu Bakr also cites verses in the Meccan chapters of the Quran too. Recall that Muhammad lived in Mecca and got revelations there. He did not have any kind of military, large or small, so the verses were peaceful. In the following verses, Allah alone shows his wrath or promises hell. Certainly a Muslim army did not exist at that time to implement divine wrath. On the other hand, the verses in Medina reveal that he had a militia that grew into an army, so the verses can be violent. Some verses, however, are peaceful. In the following list of verses, the numbers in parentheses refer to Tabari’s history, volume and page numbers. The other digits are Quranic references. Throughout Tabari’s volumes on the first caliph, Abu Bakr quotes or refers to these Meccan verses: 19:18 (10.4); 39:3 (10.4); 20:29 (10.5); 25:35 (10.5); 27:52 (10.13); 19:98 (10.13); 37:53 (10.13); 39:30 (10.56); 36:70 (10.55); 23:34 (10.56); 89:14 (10.56); 18:17 (10.56); 18:50 (10.57); 35:6 (10.57); 65:2-3, 5 (11.79). He quotes or refers to these Medinan verses without violence: 24:26 (10.12); 2:119 (10.55); 33:46 (10.55); 3:144 (10.56). However, in the Medinan chapters peaceful verses and the violent ones are not far away. Abu Bakr reigned as caliph for only two years, so Tabari does not show Abu Bakr quoting or referencing very many verses, relative to the next three caliphs.

[20] Ibid. 11.129-38. The tradition that says Abu Bakr was poisoned by the Jews may have come about because reliable traditions say that Muhammad was poisoned by the Khaybar Jews.

[21] Bukhari, Virtue of Medina, 3.1889, and Patients, 7.5677 mention Abu Bakr’s fever, but nothing about the Jews.

[22] Tabari 11.140-41.

[23] Ibid. 14.115 says Umar carried a whip, implying it was a matter of regular practice or policy. But G. Rex Smith, the translator of vol. 14 of the Tabari history says that Umar sometimes regretted hitting people and might compensate them in some way, though Smith cites no source (xviii).

[24] It should be pointed out that Umar dismissed Khalid al-Walid from top leadership (11.158-59), due to Khalid’s violence (10.102), but kept him around in other leadership capacities because of his military talent. In 638 Khalid complains that Umar treated him like dirt. Umar assessed his wealth to 20,000 dirhams. He said he finally dismissed him because Khalid had acquired too much trust from the people, and they were captivated by illusions of him (13.108). Khalid died in bed of a sickness, in Syria, complaining he was not a martyr in war.

[25] Tabari 14.2.

[26] Ibid. 11.174.

[27] Ibid. 12.85. Cf. 12.129.

[28] Ibid. 11.195.

[29] Ibid. 12.35-36. The words in first and third brackets are added; the second one is the translator’s.

[30] Ibid. 12.74-81.

[31] Ibid. 12.79-80. The word in brackets is added. In another passage Umar addressed one of his commanders who was about to lead a campaign against the enemies of Islam, some of whom were polytheists:

Go forth in God’s name and fight in God’s cause against all those who do not believe in God. If you meet your polytheist enemy, call upon them to take [one of] three courses of action. Summon them to Islam and if they accept, and choose [to remain] in their lands, they will have alms obligations [to be paid] from their own wealth and have no share in the immovable booty [accruing to] the Muslims. If, [having accepted Islam], they choose to join you, they will have similar privileges and obligations to your own. But if they refuse [to accept Islam], then summon them to [pay] the land tax. If they declare that they will pay the land tax, fight their enemy beyond them and leave them free to pay – but do not impose on them more than they have the capacity [to pay]. If they refuse [to pay the land tax], then fight them, for God will be your helper against them. (Ibid. 14.83-84; the words in brackets were added by the translator)

Apparently Umar was willing to permit certain polytheists to live, but they had to pay a tax. Further, if the new converts from polytheism to Islam joined the army, they were exempt from taxes, in some way. Immovable booty consists of things like land and houses, and the polytheists do not have control over them, after Islam arrived in their territories. While conquering Iran, Umar’s commanders, under his orders, followed the same pattern: 14.8, 9, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37-38, 46, and 75.

[32] For an analysis of Quran 9:29, see M. J. Kister, “’An Yadin’ (Quran IX, 29): An Attempt at Interpretation,” Arabica 9 (1964) 272-78.

[33] Tabari 12.34-40. Cf. 12.68, 72-74, 113, 127, 137-38, 152-57, 13.46-47; 13.164, 169-72 (the city of Alexandria surrendered and paid a poll tax) for more examples of inviting the Persians to accept Islam or be defeated. If they accept Islam, they have to pay taxes.

[34] Tabari 12.25-27; on p. 26 they yelled Allahu akbar after the booty was distributed. For more examples of the cry Allahu akbar serving as inspiration for battle or a battle signal, see 11.125; 12.89-91, 94, 99, 105, 108-09, 116-20, 124, 171, 176-77, 195-96; 13.55, 188, 202, 208; 14.25; 17.134.

[35] Ibid. 12.129, 143-44. In this latter passage Umar establishes conquered land for veteran Muslims, which will serve as their stipend or a retirement system.

[36] Ibid. 12.206-07. Cf. 13.32-33; 13.46. Uthman varied the division of spoils once in a while in favor of the commanders, to the neglect of Medina (15.19). Umar was more consistent, one-fifth to Medina, four-fifths to the soldiers: 14.22, 33, 67, and 77.

[37] Ibid. 12.89-90.

[38] Ibid. 12.90.

[39] Ibid. 12.149.

[40] Utbah died on his way to other “jumping off points” in Iraq that would lead to India. Al-Mughirah b. Shubah was placed in his stead (12.170). But first the Muslim armies had to go through Iran.

[41] Tabari 12.167.

[42] Ibid. 12.190.

[43] Ibid. 12.189.

[44] Ibid. 12.191

[45] In Tabari’s volumes on Umar Tabari has him quoting or referring to these Meccan verses: 42:38 (12.5); 38:1-88 (12.194); 17:1-111 (12.194); 10:14 (14.62); 30:27 (14.62); 69:16 (14.125); 31:20 (14.126); 17:70 (14.126); 34:46 (14.128); 14:3 (14.128). Umar quotes or refers to these violent Medinan verses: 9:6 (12.154); 9:29 (12.153-54, 167; 13.37, 62, 90-91, 165-66); 9:33 (14.62); 69:9 (14.62); 3:185 (14.125). He quotes or refers to these Medinan verses without violence: 33:41 (12.153, 162); 2:102 (14.49); 65:3 (14.62); 59:9 (14.92); 8:26 (14.126, 128). As noted, however, in the Medinan chapters the violent verses are near the peaceful ones. One anecdote says “Umar used to wander around the markets, reciting the Quran” . . . (14.121).

[46] Umar came up with methods to administer his territory. For example he implanted the state registers, in which “he recorded the [names of] people according to their tribes and assigned them stipends” (14.115; cf. 13.45). Other passages covering administration during Umar’s caliphate: 11.167-68; 12.62, 129, 143-44, 145-61, 165; 13.48, 62, 77, 104, 120-21; 14.43-47, 164-65, 199 (military pay system). In this study, not devoted to bureaucracy, Umar’s policy will have to stand in for the next two caliphs.

[47] Tabari 12.199-207. Dividing up the riches and spoils gets a little more complicated in these pages, but this will do for our purposes. Conquering part of Egypt, Umar gave the spoils of land to Muslims, and one-fifth to the leadership (13.182). See also 13.32.

[48] Ibid. 14.60-63. The translation of the Quranic verse in Umar’s speech is that of the Tabari translator, and the word in bracket is his too.

[49] Ibid. 15.3-4.

[50] Ibid. 15.31.

[51] Ibid. 15.63-64.

[52] Ibid. 15.5.

[53] Ibid. 15.33.

[54] Ibid. 15.6, 16-17, 22, 48-49.

[55] Ibid. 15.16-17, 48.

[56] Ibid. 15.6-7.

[57] Ibid. 15.23.

[58] Ibid. 15.22-24.

[59] Ibid. 15.45.

[60] Ibid. 15.51-52.

[61] Ibid. 15.53-54.

[62] Ibid. 15.112-25.

[63] Ibid. 15.109-10.

[64] Ibid. 15.61-62.

[65] Ibid. 15.7.

[66] Ibid. 15.14-15.

[67] Ibid. 15.10-11.

[68] Ibid. 15.12-13.

[69] Ibid. 15.26.

[70] Ibid. 15.72-74.

[71] Ibid. 15.74-78.

[72] Ibid. 15.90-93, 102-10.

[73] Ibid. 15.22-23.

[74] Ibid. 15.9.

[75] Ibid. 15.20-22.

[76] Ibid. 15.157.

[77] Ibid. 15.218-23.

[78] Ibid. 15.161.

[79] Ibid. 15.165-66.

[80] Ibid. 15.183.

[81] Ibid. 15.196 (cf. Quran 61:9, 48:28). The word in brackets in Quran 9:33 are the translators’.

[82] Ibid. 15.164.

[83] Ibid. 15.213.

[84] Tabari in his volumes on Uthman has him quote or refer to these Meccan verses: 18:42-44 (15.4); 89:5-13 (15.136); 35:22 (15.163); 13:12 (15.187); 11:91 (15.210); 34:52 (15.210); 20:1 (15.213); 32:19 (15.239); 14:37 (15.239); 16:93-98 (15.241); 6:160 (15.242); 11:91-92 (15.242); 17:36 (15.245); 12:53 (15.245). Uthman quotes or refers to these Medinan verses with violence: 9:4-6 (15.156); 3:167 (15.213); 3:97-101 (15.239). He quotes or refers to these Medinan verses without violence: 3:30 (15.127); 2:113 (15.163); 3:98 (15.206); 5:10 (15.240); 49:6-8 (15.240); 3:71 (15.240); 64:16 (15.240); 4:31 (15.241); 24:54 (15.241); 48:10 (15.240). However, as noted, in the Medinan chapters the violent verses are not far from the peaceful ones.

[85] Ibid. 15.254-55.

[86] Ibid. 16.39, 52, 57.

[87] Ibid. 16.40.

[88] Ibid. 16.111-12, 158-59.

[89] Ibid. 16.150, 163-64.

[90] Ibid. 16.112-13, 169-70, 187-91. The land tax (cf. Quran 18:94 and 23:72) is not explicitly mentioned in the commissioning of the Kufan governor, but surely some kind of tax was collected, since Ali made Kufah his capital. Other caliphs implemented the Kharaj or land tax. See, for example, Tabari 13.9, 47, 51, 60, 90, 100, 121, 126, 158-59, 180, 215, all under Umar’s rule.

[91] Ibid. 16.16. This is a Medinan chapter.

[92] Ibid. 16.35. This is a Medinan chapter and translated by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, The Quran, rev. ed. (New York: Oxford, 2010). If readers would like to see various translation of the Quran, they may go to the website quranbrowser.com and type in the references.

[93] Ibid. 16.86. This is a Medinan chapter. The comment in brackets is added.

[94] Ibid. 16.81. This is a Medinan chapter. The comments in brackets are added by me.

[95] Ibid. 16.108-09. This is a Meccan chapter and translated by Abdel Haleem. The comments in brackets are added by me.

[96] Ibid. 16.113. This is a Meccan chapter. The first comment in brackets is Abdel Haleem’s ; the second is added.

[97] Ibid. 16.116.

[98] Ibid. 16.162. The comment in brackets is Abdel Haleem’s. This is a Meccan chapter.

[99] Ibid. 16.177-79. Quran 3:173 is a Medinan verse; the others are Meccan.

[100] Ibid. 16.166-67.

[101] Ibid. 16.167.

[102] Ibid 17.78. G. R. Hawting, the translator of Tabari’s vol. 17, says:

Al-mushaf (of which al-masahif is the plural) may refer simply to a volume or a book but, used without further specification, usually refers to the Qur'an or a copy of it. Many scholars, traditional and modern, have been happy to accept that Amr b. al-As’s [an arbiter in the negotiations] famous plan was for the raising of copies of the Qur'an on the ends of the Syrian lances. Some, however, have seen problems in that interpretation: Most obviously, according to the tradition, this would have been relatively soon after the promulgation of the text by 'Uthman (who is said to have had all variant copies destroyed), and it is hard to see that many manuscript copies could have been made as yet. Various theories have been proposed to get around this difficulty (see, e.g., Hinds, "Siffin Arbitration Agreement"). To allow for the possibility that, at the time of the Fitnah, al-mushaj (or expressions such as the Book of God or the Book) did not yet designate the Qur'an as we understand it and to avoid imposing an interpretation, the terminology of the text has been maintained in the following. (note 319)

[103] Ibid. 17.21-109.

[104] Ibid. 17.137.

[105] Ibid. 17.30 (the translation is that of the Tabari translator). Cf. 17.39.

[106] Ibid. 17.38.

[107] Ibid. 17.61.

[108] Ibid. 17.73-74; cf. 17.120 (the latter verse speaks of trying to win back the Kharajites).

[109] Ibid. 17.191-92. Cf. 17.221.

[110] Ibid. 17.37, 76, 79, 96, 120, 121, 128, 136-37, 150-51, 154, 164.

[111] Abdel Haleem’s translation, my insertion.

[112] Ibid. 17.174-75. Inspiration drawn from violent verses not discussed in this section on Ali: 9:32 (17.120); 61:8 (17.120-21). The Meccan verses Ali quotes or refers to: 40:40 (17.34); 53:31 (17.34); 52:5 (17.35); 41:37 (17.35); 40:64 (17.35); 55:10 (17.35); 52:5 (17.36); 78:7 (17.35); 79:32-33 (17.36); 68:49 (17.120); 16:108 (17.182); 27:24 (17.182); 29:38 (17.38); 27:4 (17.182); 18:104 (17.182); 16.96 (17.182); 6:110, 112, 137 (17.182); 6:162-63 (17.220); 7:186 (17.182). Medinan verses without violence Ali quotes: 4:1 (14.150); 59:16 (15.217) 2:164 (17.35); 47:16 (17.182); 3:102-03 (17.220); 2:83 (17.221); 5:2 (17.222); 5:54 (17.221). As noted, however, in the Medinan chapters the violent verses are not far from the peaceful ones.

[113] Ibid. 17.186-88.

[114] Ibid. 17.213-27.

[115] Glassé, Encyclopedia, 514-29, gives the timeline, as do these sources: Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine: 634-1099 (Cambridge UP, 1983, 1997). David Nicolle. The Armies of Islam, (Men-at-Arms. Osprey, 1982). Idem, Saladin and the Saracens, (Men-at Arms. Osprey, 1986). Idem, Armies of the Muslim Conquests, (Men-at-Arms. Osprey, 1993). Idem, The Moors, the Islamic West, (Men-at-Arms. Osprey, 2001).

[116] It should be noted that in this article we did not cover the caliphs’ attachment to the black stone because it had already been conquered, so it no longer had enough geopolitical importance to wage war for it. The four caliphs led pilgrimages there peacefully and often enough. Rather, they were concerned with expanding Islam beyond the Arabian peninsula.

[117] See, e.g., Tabari 12.172.

[118] Malise Ruthven and Azim Nanji, in their Historical Atlas of Islam (Harvard, 2004), 30, write:

Islam expanded by conquest and conversion. Although it was sometimes said that the faith of Islam was spread by the sword, the two are not the same. The Koran states unequivocally, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256).

However, it is difficult to figure out what the difference is between “by conquest” and “by the sword.” They are the same. Plus, Quran 2:256 was spoken early on in Medina, when Muhammad was weak. He was about to get stronger, and the verse will no longer apply, in the eyes of many Muslims. It certainly did not apply to the four caliphs’ conquests by the sword.

Sayyid Qutb, (d. 1966), a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, also citing Quran 2:256, is even more categorical: "Never in its history did Islam compel a single human being to change his faith" (In the Shade of the Qur’an, vol. 8, [London: The Islamic Foundation, 2007] 307). This claim, however, is absurd on its face. And this article contradicts it with evidence.

David Dakake, a graduate student in Religious Studies at Temple University at the time he wrote his article, says about Islam’s conquests:

These agreements [terms of surrender after Muslims attack two cities] . . . demonstrate that historically jihad was directed against those who stood in opposition to the political authority of the Islamic state. It was not directed against a people simply because they professed a faith other than Islam. The point of jihad was not to establish a world populated by Muslims; it was to create a social order in which the freedom to practice the worship of God was guaranteed for Muslims as well as for People of the Book. (“The Myth of Militant Islam,” in Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition, ed. J.E.B. Lumbard [Bloomington: World Wisdom, 2004], 23)

However, the campaigns in this article contradict Dakake’s claims. Most of the Islamic conquests were against peaceful tribes and territories which never bothered Islam. Yes, they stood in opposition to Islamic justice (i.e. Islam itself), but then the Islamic state should not have been waging war on peaceful people in the first place, whether they lived within the Arabian peninsula or outside it.

[119] Tabari 14.45.

[120] Quran 5:15-16 says:

15 People of the Book, Our Messenger has come to make clear to you much of what you have kept hidden of the Scripture, and to overlook much [you have done]. A light has now come to you from God, and a Scripture making things clear, 16 with which God guides to the ways of peace those who follow what pleases Him, bringing them from darkness out into the light, by His will, and guiding them to a straight path. (The words in brackets are those of the translator)

The Sword and the Jew

Jesus and his earliest followers were Jews. His and their relationship with them and Judaism was at first appreciative, but tension eventually grew until the two co-religionists split apart. Sometimes the polemics was heated, but did it escalate into violence from either side?

Islam, on the other hand, followed a different storyline. Muhammad was not a Jew. At first he admired the Jewish community and intended to work with them, even reform them. But suspicions and harsh words increased as they interacted. But did the polemics escalate into violence from either side?

Early Christianity

This section is divided into the sociological and the theological.

Sociology examines how groups interact, in this case Christians, Jews, and pagans (the latter group a broad term for those who worship various gods). They were in competition with each other in the marketplace of religious ideas, but do the first Christians wield the sword to impose their views on the other two groups?

The theological looks at the New Covenant and its relations with the Old, on the specific matter of circumcision and kosher food laws. Then the theological section briefly examines how the Jews fit into the plan of God, according to the teaching of Paul. Does he teach that God has rejected his own people?

The Sociological

In the four Gospels, about four decades before the destruction of the temple by the Romans in AD 70, Jesus crisscrossed his homeland Israel, preaching and living the kingdom of God. Sometimes ordinary fellow Jews did not accept his teaching (John 6:60-66). But most in fact liked what they heard and saw, particularly his healing ministry.

The opposition to Jesus came from the leaders of his own nation. He opposed their power structures that governed the temple in Jerusalem. That is one reason he made a whip and cleared part of the temple (Mark 11:12-19). The Gospel of John uses the word “Jews” over seventy times, sometimes positively (e.g. John 4:22) and sometimes neutrally (e.g. John 2:6). But John mostly uses it of the Jewish leaders who were hostile to Jesus. This matches up with the other three Gospels.

In almost all cases when the sparks fly in the Gospels, the clash happens between him and religious leaders. In fact, a careful keyword search in an exhaustive concordance of the Bible confirms this class difference. He did not condemn ordinary people; rather, he told them that his way led to an easing of heavy religious burdens (Matt. 11:28-30). But he challenged the leaders who put these burdens on the people. He pronounced “Seven Woes” on them (Matt. 23:1-36).

Thus, Jesus himself was a Jew who lived in the Jewish homeland. He encountered opposition, but confrontation does not have to lead to his raising a militia to attack them or secretly assassinating any of them.

After the death and resurrection of Jesus, the earliest Christians were not initially called “Christians,” but followers of the Way, until a strong Christian community was established in Antioch (Acts 11:26). None of them had any political power, and they never mustered out a militia to attack their opponents.

Rather, they were the persecuted. While in Jerusalem, they underwent opposition from the same establishment that opposed Jesus (Acts 4:1-22; 5:17-40; 6:8-8:3; 12:1-18). That last passage describes Herod Agrippa beheading James, one of the twelve apostles, and then imprisoning Peter, who managed to escape by miraculous intervention.

As the followers of the Way moved out into the Roman provinces, their opposition was made up of their fellow Jews and the gentile authorities. Paul and other missionaries traveled in Jewish circles and also among pagans in Greco-Roman cities. It stands to reason that if anyone opposed these missionaries, the opponents would come from Roman authorities and the Jews. How could this be otherwise?

For example, in the opposition from pagans against Paul, they accurately saw that his preaching would curtail their idol-making business and dry up pilgrimages to the huge temple of the goddess Artemis (Diana), so a riot ensued (Acts 19:23-31). Likewise, the passages in Acts about Jewish opposition to the message of Paul and other missionaries are merely reports of what really happened, not anti-Semitic polemics calculated to stir up hatred (e.g. Acts 13:49-52; 14:4-7, 19-20; 21:27-23:35).

Thus, the early Christians had no political power, so their hands were empty of the weapons of persecution. The verses in Acts must be read in that historical context.

It is true that the New Testament at times reflects tension between Judaism and the fledgling church, which was feeling its way doctrinally and practically. After all, Christianity flows out of Judaism, so where else would there be tension? Christians and Jews were gradually going their own direction. During this drifting apart, the leaders of the church – all Jews early on – had to decide whether recent converts should be required to keep large portions of the Law of Moses. Some of the stricter Jews who had become followers of the Way said that the converts had to be circumcised and to keep the kosher food laws.

Paul foresaw that this would limit the number of converts, particularly men, so he opposed such requirements. He also went in this new direction because of his interpretation of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and because of the doctrine of grace. Also, after a divine vision, Peter came to the same conclusion as Paul’s, namely, that God wanted to reach out to gentiles, though Peter’s main ministry was to Jews (Acts 10:1-11:18; cf. Acts 9:15; Galatians 1:16; 2:2, 7-8). Paul too preached to Jews very often (cf. Acts 9:20; 13:5, 15-43; 14:1; 17:2-4; 18:4), though his main calling was to gentiles.

Peter and Paul clashed over the purity ritual of not eating with gentiles (Galatians 2:11-21). When certain extra-strict Jewish Christians came to Antioch from Jerusalem, Peter did not want to be seen eating with gentile Christians. Paul rightly rebuked him for withdrawing from his newly converted gentile brothers.

In the final analysis Peter and other leaders – to repeat, they were all Jews – decided not to impose on the new gentile converts heavy laws. The council in Jerusalem decided on such matters (Acts 15:1-29). There was a lot of church unity on not imposing these laws, agreeing largely with Paul’s view (Galatians 3:1-25).

The Theological

The law of the Old Testament does not justify or save sinners, under the New Covenant, which goes in a different and higher direction. Faith in Christ alone saves, not circumcision or keeping kosher food laws. If the law is no longer at the center and is no longer necessary for somebody to be justified by God, why impose this particular command of circumcision, which was explicitly given for the physical descendants of Abraham, on those converts that were not part of these descendants? How could early Christian leaders justify preaching the New Covenant apart from the Old Testament law, but insist on performing this command of the Old Covenant law? And so they came to the conclusion that this would not be consistent.

Thus, Paul circumcised one of his disciples (Timothy) but not the other (Titus), because one was Jewish (but not circumcised for whatever reason) while Titus was gentile. That is, Paul had Timothy circumcised only because of his outreach to Jews – for this practical reason (Acts 16:1-5), not to get Timothy saved or justified before God. We can easily imagine devout Jews telling Paul and his team that they would refuse to listen to Paul’s message because of Timothy. Paul therefore thought it best to eliminate this practical stumbling block. On the other side, Titus visited the apostles in Jerusalem but was not required to get circumcised (Galatians 2:1-5).

In the final analysis, it is not works of the flesh – literally – that God approves of, or other works, like praying many times a day or avoiding pork, but the Spirit sent into the heart of all who ask for him – He is the one who saves and justifies. This is the message of the New Covenant, and it would be a pity to drop it for any kind of religious law.

God has not abandoned his chosen people, the Jews. Paul, in his complex chapters (9, 10, 11) in his theological treatise called the epistle to the Romans, is baffled why national Israel rejected Jesus, whom he saw in a vision on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:1-19). But in spite of all the severe persecution he suffered at the hands of his fellow Jews, and regardless of his bafflement, he still concludes that God has not rejected his chosen people. He writes in Romans 11:1-2:

1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.[1] (Romans 11:1-2)

He goes on to say that God has reserved for himself a remnant, just as in the days of Elijah. He says that at the end of times, all issues will be sorted out, but only by God’s doing, not humanity’s.

Christians and Jews are allowed to keep their religion without charges of mutual hatred and without physically attacking each other. It is true that some passages in the New Testament employ strong rhetoric against Jewish leaders and pagans (cf. Matt. 12:34; 23:27, 33; Acts 17:21, 23, 30; 23:3; Revelation 2:9), but words do not have to add up to violence.

To conclude this entire section, while it is true that Christians did not have the authority to pass laws protecting their fledgling community, they could have assassinated their persecutors or stoned them to death before the authorities could act, or they could taken the law into their own hands in other ways. However, Jesus and the early church did not resort to the sword against their opponents, whether Jews or pagans.

The whole point of tolerance is that people can choose their own religion without persecution from dominant groups.

Early Islam

Muhammad’s relations with the Jews were complicated, so his story takes more time. At first Muhammad lived peacefully with them, shortly after his emigration or hijrah from Mecca to Medina in A.D. 622. In fact, he saw himself as a reformer of Judaism.

But as he discusses his ideas with the rather large and strong Jewish communities in Medina, trouble erupted, because they refused his ideas. Muhammad grows in his hostility towards them.

These ruptures and hostilities take place in two overlapping domains: theology and politics, both backed by Muhammad’s increasingly strong military.

The Theological

The theological can be subdivided into five stages:

Islam’s fulfillment of Judaism; Muhammad’s efforts to develop and improve on Judaism; Jewish resistance, based on Muhammad’s deficient knowledge of the Torah and his gentile status; his change in prayer direction; and Muhammad’s riposte to this resistance.

1. Allah tells Muhammad in a Quranic chapter revealed in Mecca that the "unlettered" prophet (Muhammad) is described in the Torah and Gospel, and hence predicted and endorsed by the two prior religions:

156 "I shall ordain My mercy for those who are conscious of God and pay the prescribed alms; who believe in Our Revelations; 157 who follow the Messenger – the unlettered prophet they find described in the Torah that is with them, and in the Gospel – who commands them to do right and forbids them to do wrong, who makes good things lawful to them and bad things unlawful"[2] . . . (Quran 7:156-157)

The textual context of these verses shows Moses rebuking the children of Israel for disobeying him. They denied God’s signs and worshiped the golden calf as Moses was coming down with the tablets of stone, inscribed with the Ten Commandments (Quran 7:145-156). Verses 156-157 imply that someone better than Moses (and Jesus) is here to guide them rightly.

Muhammad declares what is lawful and unlawful and commands people to do right and forbids them to do wrong. The Jews of Muhammad’s time were getting a second chance. Would they accept it after falling away from the Torah?

2. While Muhammad is settling down in Medina and his position there is insecure, he tries to convince the Jews that his revelations were the continuation of Judaism (and Christianity), the religion of the People of the Book or the Bible. Before he left Mecca, he faced Syria (i.e. Jerusalem) in prayer. The early Muslims in Medina may have observed the fast for the Day of Atonement, and their special Friday worship was a response to the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath from Friday evening to Saturday evening. Muhammad forbad the Muslims from eating the same food prohibited for Jews, namely, pork, blood, carrion, and meat sacrificed to idols (see Quran 2:172-173).

It seems, then, that earliest Islam was the development and even improvement on the prior faith, Judaism, or so Muhammad believed. Why would tension grow between Islam and Judaism?

3. The Jews, however, saw things a little differently. Muhammad was not educated in the Torah. He had picked up some elements from the Scriptures, in bits and pieces, which had been circulating around Arabia along the trade routes and garbled by poets and storytellers, so his knowledge was deficient. It is possible that one or two Jewish converts who had a certain level of knowledge in the Torah coached him, as well.[3] Whatever the case, it was not hard for the Jews to contradict him.[4]

Further, it was not difficult for the Jews to reject him as falling outside of Biblical revelation. Besides, Muhammad was a gentile, and that in itself was enough to turn away from him.

Thus, hostility grew between the two sides.

4. This stage in the theological domain is the change in prayer direction. Today, Muslims pray towards Mecca and the Kabah, where hundreds of thousands of pilgrims go every year.

However, when Muhammad lived in Mecca, he prayed toward Jerusalem. After he arrived in Medina at the end of his emigration in 622, he still prayed towards Jerusalem. Sixteen months later (February 624), he believed he should change his prayer direction toward the Kabah (Quran 2:122-129; 142-147).

How did this change of prayer direction come about?

Certain factors explain the change or the need for this timely revelation. After Muhammad settled in Medina, he found, as noted, a powerful Jewish presence in his new city. He saw himself as a prophet in the Biblical tradition, but tension between him and the Jews reached a boiling point. So he changed his prayer direction towards the Kabah in Mecca.

Then, the Jews challenged the messenger of Allah: if Muhammad were the new representative of Judaism and monotheism, why was he praying toward the Kabah, which was dedicated to polytheism? He then got a revelation that gave him permission. He believed that Abraham had built and purified the shrine, so it does not belong to the polytheists, but to him (Quran 2:122-129; 8:34-38). He was the best representative of true monotheism, and he was the one honoring Abraham.

Finally, besides his belief that Abraham built the Kabah, the shrine was a popular site of pilgrimage in the Arabian Peninsula, so it generated a lot of income. Since early Islam was expanding, Muhammad could not let the Kabah alone until "worship is devoted to God," as opposed to the pagan deities (Quran 2:193).

The shrine must become a site of pilgrimage and support for Muslims, as Muhammad himself admits: "God has made the Kabah – the Sacred House – a means of support for people"... (Quran 5:97).

So it is in the historical context of the tension with the Jews in Medina, his unassailable (but unfounded) belief that Abraham built and purified the Kabah, and the Kabah’s popularity that Muhammad turned his face toward Mecca in prayer to Allah. The upshot is that he turned his back on Jerusalem, so the rupture with the Jews widened.

5. In the final stage of Muhammad’s theological development, given his inadequate knowledge of the Bible, he had to fight back theologically in his own way, striking out on a new path and reinterpreting matters in the new light of Abraham’s religion, if Muhammad’s new competitor religion is to survive. This struggle lasted for several years until the Jews were no longer a threat, and then he directed his aggressive energies against the Christians.

But until that time, Muhammad struck back against the Jews.

To begin with, he claimed, for instance, that Abraham was not a Jew (nor a Christian) (Quran 3:67), so original monotheism is open to another descendant of Abraham: Muhammad himself and his Arabs who were believed to descend from the first monotheist through Ishmael, according to Muhammad. Further, the Hebrew Bible (and the New Testament) was perniciously misinterpreted and misapplied (Quran 2:75, 79; 3:77-78; 4:44-49).

The Quran, on the other hand, came directly from Allah through Gabriel and hence is incorruptible, straightforward, and clear (Quran 39:28, 55:1, 75:19, 26:193, 2:97). Muhammad’s religion wins out over any contradictions, in his mind (Quran 3:23). In addition, Jews were said to conceal the truth about Muhammad’s prophethood and the righteous practices of Islam (Quran 2:42, 146, 159, 174; 3:187-188; 5:70), so the Bible really testifies about him, though the Jews do not want this to leak out.

Next, from Muhammad’s point of view, both Judaism and Christianity made exclusive claims of being the right way (Quran 2:111-113), yet both came from the same children of Israel; thus, both religions in Muhammad’s time went astray from their origins (Quran 2:135-141). So if some claims of all three religions are contradictory, then the fault lies in the first two religions, not his, which resolves all contradictions (Quran 3:23).

Finally, as noted, the Torah itself says that the children of Israel disobeyed Moses in denying God’s signs and in worshipping the golden calf. If the Jews of Moses’ time were disobedient, then according to Muhammad’s reasoning the Jews as a whole in his own time cannot be purer (Quran 7:145-156), though some are acknowledged as staying true (Quran 3:113-115).

Many verses in Chapter 2 of the Quran, an early chapter in Medina, say that the Jews are not true or obedient believers (Quran 2:8-20; 40-96) and do not believe the revelations delivered by Gabriel himself (2:97-100). Therefore, the Jews of Medina are setting themselves up for a fall, as the next section on the political realm will show.[5]

In fact, the rhetoric got so heated throughout his interaction with the Jews that he incorporated into his Quran the legend that Allah transformed certain of them into apes and pigs (Quran 7:163-167; 2:65; 5:60).

And thus Muhammad’s religion is the better and purer representation of Abraham and fulfills and completes Judaism (and Christianity), as he sees things (Quran 5:12-19).

So the theological break with the Jews is complete. Yet these differences and harsh rhetoric do not have to lead to violence.

But they did.

We now turn to the political realm, to find out why.

The Political

As hostilities grow in the domain of theology, the political or historical strain also grows, hand in hand. Muhammad increases his military strength, which backs up his theology and politics. It is in this section that Muhammad’s hostility towards the Jews will become most evident.

The growth of his hostility occurs in seven chronological stages.

At the end of this process, Jews will no longer inhabit the Arab peninsula in the Hijaz (the western area, in modern Saudi Arabia).[6]

To begin with, at the time of Muhammad’s hijrah, three major Jewish clans lived in Medina: Qaynuqa, Nadir, and Qurayza. Muhammad worked on an agreement with them that all the Jews were to be neutral.[7] But things are about to change.

1. In this stage, in 624 after his victory at the Battle of Badr in March, a battle which made his position in Medina more secure, Muhammad expelled the one clan that dominated the trades in Medina: Qaynuqa. One day a Muslim woman was conducting business in this Jewish section, and some Jews (or one Jew) fastened her skirt to a nail. When she stood up, she was exposed. A Muslim happened to be present and witnessed the practical joke and the ridicule, and killed one of the pranksters, who avenged their friend’s death in turn. Despite this prank found in Islamic source documents, it is unclear what his real motives were for the expulsion, for the trick is found elsewhere in pre-Islamic Arab literature.

But what elicited this expulsion? Was it the Jewish refusal to become Muslims? Jewish opposition to his policies and religion?

For example, Abu Bakr, one of his chief companions, barged into a Jewish school led by two rabbis. He called on one of the rabbis "to fear God and become a Muslim because he knew that Muhammad was the apostle of God who had brought the truth from Him and that they would find it written in the Torah and the Gospel."[8] One of the rabbis sassed him, saying that Allah must be poor, if Muhammad has to borrow money from the Jews. Enraged, Abu Bakr struck him hard on the face.

The story ends with the rabbi denying to Muhammad that he sassed Abu Bakr, but the messenger of Allah got a revelation that the rabbi had mocked Allah (cf. Quran 3:181). Thus, Abu Bakr was justified in using physical violence in response to disrespectful words.

The Muslim emigrants moved from a trading and artisan town (Mecca) to an agrarian town (Medina), so they were impoverished. The Qaynuqa tribe controlled the market of the craftsmen in Medina – the exact skills of the emigrants. So were Muhammad’s motives to take over partially economic? Early historian Tabari (d. 923) writes: "The Banu [tribe] Qaynuqa did not have any land, as they were goldsmiths [and armor-makers]. The Messenger of God took many weapons belonging to them and the tools of their trade."[9] Did the Qaynuqa betray Muhammad in some way between the Battle of Badr (AD 624) and the Battle of Uhud (AD 625)? The sources do not provide reliable details.

Whatever the case, Muhammad waged war on these Jews. They retreated to their strongholds, and he besieged them for fifteen days. He gave them three days to collect the debts owed to them and to get out of Medina, but to leave their tools behind. Did at least some of the poor emigrants take up the vacant trades? The clan departed northward, where a Jewish community lived. Then a month later they left for Syria.

So one tribe is now gone from Medina.[10]

2. In the second stage, occurring in late August and early September 625, Muhammad besieged and expelled the Nadir clan from Medina. Muhammad’s motives were much too complicated to be described here, but they seem to be founded on blood feuds and the payment of blood-wit, which compensates for loss of life. He went to the Nadir settlement near Medina to ask for some blood-wit money that he had to pay, but the Jews were reluctant, even though by apparent agreement with another tribe the Nadir clan was required to contribute to the payment.

They asked him to stay until they prepared a dinner, but after a short time he left because he got a revelation that they were going to assassinate him by dropping a stone off the roof of a building, where he was sitting with his back against its wall. Or perhaps the real reason for exiling the clan lay in Muhammad’s recent loss in the Battle of Uhud in March 625 and in a failed raiding expedition in June, so his position weakened somewhat in Medina – but still strong enough to confront the tribe.

Whatever the motive, Muhammad besieged Nadir in their strongholds for fifteen days until he started destroying their date palms, their livelihood, so they capitulated to his first demand for blood-wit money. However, he raised the penalty – they must get nothing from their palms. Their livelihood undergoing destruction and then confiscation, they departed to the city of Khaybar, seventy miles to the north, where they had estates. This takeover helped relieve the ongoing poverty of many Muslims, who took over their date orchards. Muhammad expelled the entire tribe because they supposedly tried to kill him and refused to pay the blood-wit money.

A second tribe is now gone from Medina.[11]

3. and 4. The third and fourth stages concern two assassinations of Jewish leaders from the Nadir clan, one year apart, because they fraternized with Muhammad’s enemies. In May 626 a Muslim who had a Jewish foster-mother and spoke Hebrew managed to gain entrance into the Jew’s house at night with four companions and easily kill him. They hid until the search died down and then returned to Medina, with the blessing of Muhammad.

The second assassination, in February-March 627, was more deceptive. Under the guise of ambassadors from Muhammad, thirty Muslims traveled up to Khaybar and invited the Jew to Medina to negotiate peace between him and Muhammad. Despite warnings, thirty Jews set out with the Muslims. W. Montgomery Watt rightly says that the Jews were unarmed.[12] The Muslim leader surreptitiously made his camel carrying himself and the Jew lag behind, and then the Muslim killed him. The other Jews were also killed except one.

Assassinating Jewish leaders weakened the Jewish communities in the vicinity.[13]

5. This stage describes the aftermath of the Battle of the Trench in March 627. Muhammad imposed the ultimate penalty on the men in the Jewish tribe of Qurayza, his third and final major Jewish rivals in Medina. They were supposed to remain neutral in the Battle, but they seem to have intrigued with the Meccans and to have been on the verge of attacking Muhammad from the rear – though they did not. Tradition says that while he was bathing, the archangel Gabriel appeared to him and told him to attack the large tribe.[14] He besieged them and forced them to surrender. For their alleged betrayal, they must be put on trial.

The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 600 men (one source says as high as 900),[15] and enslavement for the women and children. Muhammad was wise enough to have six clans execute two Jews each in order to stop any blood-feuds. The rest of the executions were probably carried out by Muhammad’s fellow emigrants from Mecca, and lasted throughout the night, as the heads and bodies were dragged into trenches.

The messenger of Allah celebrates his actions in Quran 33:25-27, concerning the Battle of the Trench and his treatment of Qurayza:

25 God sent back the disbelievers [Meccans and their allies] along with their rage – they gained no benefit -- and spared the believers from fighting [q-t-l]. He is strong and mighty. 26 He brought those of the People of the Book [Qurayza] who supported them down from their fortresses and cast panic into their hearts. Some of them you [believers] killed [q-t-l] and some you took captive. 27 He passed on to you their land, their houses their possessions, and a land where you have never set foot: God has power over everything.[16] (33:25-27)

The Arabic words qital and qatala (three-letter root is q-t-l) mean, as noted, only warring, killing slaughtering, slaying, and fighting. There is no ambiguity, like an inner struggle in a man’s soul. Muhammad killed them. He took the Jewish tribe’s property on the basis of conquest, and he sold the women and children into slavery, so he got a lot of money from the confiscation and sale.

But Quran 33:25-27 leaves out Muhammad’s heart’s desire. Early Biographer Ibn Ishaq (d. 767) says Muhammad did not sell every woman.

The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself... of the Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry and put a veil on her, but she said: "Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you." So he left her. She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism.[17]

Shortly afterwards, though, she converted to Islam and a messenger informed Muhammad of this, and he reacts to the good news: "This gave him pleasure."[18] It is wrong to believe that this passion was Muhammad’s motive to execute so many Jews, but his actions did provide him with an extra, unforeseen benefit, the woman he had taken as his slave.

But in the bigger picture, the third tribe of Jews is now gone from Medina.[19]

6. In this stage, in May to June 628, Muhammad attacked Khaybar. The Jews, undeterred by the Meccan defeat or retreat at the Trench, had constantly encouraged their allies to take up arms. Long ago, the Jews of Khaybar built a series of fortresses, some on hills, and they were thought unassailable, but Muhammad attacked them one group at a time. Eventually, he prevailed and set the terms of surrender. The Jews could keep their property, but they had to turn over half their produce to specially designated Muslims who went out on this conquest and to some notables as well, like Muhammad’s wife Aisha.

This introduced a special policy that Muhammad incorporated into his religion: conquered cities housing the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) were not required to convert necessarily, but they had to pay a special tax. The details of this broad policy were worked out over time (Quran 9:29).

So another large community of Jews was weakened and subdued.[20]

It is no wonder that Muhammad believed that he was poisoned by the Jews of Khaybar.[21]

7. In the final stage, during the caliphate of Umar (r. 634-644), the Jews (and Christians) were expelled from the Hijaz of the Arabian peninsula, in 635. Umar cited the prophet’s words spoken on his deathbed: "Two religions shall not remain together in the peninsula of the Arabs."[22] What was the precipitating event to expel the Jews? Two Muslims went to inspect their property in Khaybar, and one of them was attacked in the night in his bed and had his elbows dislocated by an unidentified assailant. The attacked Muslim reported this to Umar, and the caliph concluded, "This is the work of the Jews." This was enough of a trigger to expel the entire Jewish community from Khaybar and a nearby settlement.

So finally the large communities of Jews had been run out of the Hijaz of the Arab peninsula.[23]

Conclusion

In the section on Christianity, the key to understanding the (supposed) anti-Semitism in the New Testament is, as usual, to take the sacred text in its historical context. Who were the power-brokers? Where in the hierarchy were the persecutors located? Did Jesus confront the powerful or the weak? What were the religious origins of everyone involved?

The authors of the New Testament were Jews, except Luke, who got his sources from eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus, who were all Jews. It is therefore difficult to lay at these Jews’ doorstep the charge of anti-Semitism. Strong rhetoric does not have to lead to physical violence. They did not pursue the instruments of power, like using church contributions to equip a militia or even a secret society of assassins to take matters into their own hands.

Neither Jesus nor the early Christians wielded the sword against the Jews.

In the sections on Islam, if the five theological stages had remained only in the realm of abstract theology, then no conflict would have emerged between Muslims and Jews, though theological differences would still persist. Harsh rhetoric and disagreements do not have to lead violence.

However, early Islam did not remain in an abstract realm. Do the seven historical and political steps represent a master plan drawn up by Muhammad against the Jews? Probably not. Muhammad was feeling his way. However, his path led him in one direction: the gradual expulsion or death of Jews living in Medina and its environs.

Muhammad and his community wielded the sword against the Jews.[24]

[1] The New International Version is used in this article, unless otherwise noted. If readers would like to see other translations, they can go to biblegateway.com.

[2] M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, The Quran, rev. ed. (New York: Oxford UP: 2010). If readers would like to see various translation of the Quran, they may go to the website quranbrowser.com and type in the references.

[3] Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume, (Oxford UP, 1955), 240-41. Abdullah b. Salam was a Rabbi who converted to Islam, according to Ibn Ishaq. His conversion was accepted as genuine, but some Rabbis accepted Islam hypocritically (246-47). Ibn Ishaq (d. 767) was an early biographer of Muhammad. His book is considered very valuable by scholars today.

[4] Ibid., 239-40.

[5] Ibn Ishaq in his biography has a long section on Chapter 2 of the Quran, in which the hypocrites and the Jews are referenced polemically (247-70).

[6] After each stage, the early Islamic sources are cited, and usually with one or two contemporary scholars.

[7] Watt rightly points out that the Muslim sources have a strong motive to make the case against Qurayza clan as dark as possible, so some of the terms of the treaty may be exaggerated or invented (Muhhammad at Medina 196).

[8] Ibn Ishaq, 263 and 363.

[9] Tabari, The Foundation of the Community, vol. 7, trans. M. V. McDonald and annotated by W. Montgomery Watt (Albany: SUNYP, 1987), 85-87. The words in brackets are added and not those of the translator. Scholars agree that Tabari is a valuable source for early Islamic history.

[10] Muslim, Jihad and Expeditions, 3.4363. The hadith are searchable online at the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement, under the aegis of the University of Southern California.

[11] Bukhari, Military Expeditions, 5.4028-4036; Muslim, Jihad and Expeditions, 3.4324-4326 and 4346-4349; Ibn Ishaq 437-38; Tabari 7.156-61.

[12] Watt, Muhammad in Medina, 213

[13] Bukhari, Military Expeditions, 5.4038-4040; Tabari, 7.99-105; Ibn Ishaq 482-84; 665-66 and 981.

[14] Bukhari, Jihad, 4.2813, says the archangel Gabriel helped them after Battle of Trench to conquer the Jews:

When Allah’s Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel, whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, "You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet." Allah’s Apostle said, "Where (to go now)?" Gabriel said, "This way," pointing towards the tribe of Bani [tribe] Quraiza. So Allah’s Apostle went out towards them. (The parenthetical notes are the translator’s; the word in brackets is added.)

[15] Ibn Ishaq 464.

[16] Abdel Haleem’s translation. All the words in brackets have been added by me, except “believers,” which was added by the translator.

[17] Ibn Ishaq 466.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Bukhari, Jihad, 4.2813, and Military Expeditions, 5.4117-4124; Muslim, Jihad and Military Expeditions, 3.4368-4373; Tabari, the Victory of Islam, vol. 8, trans. Michael Fishbein, (Albany: SUNYP, 1997), 27-41.

[20] Bukhari, Conditions, 3.2720, and Military Expeditions, 5.4147-4191 and 4194 and 4249; Muslim, Jihad and Military Expeditions, 3.4437-4441; Ibn Ishaq 510-18; Tabari 8.116-30.

[21] These hadith say that the Khaybar Jews poisoned Muhammad. Aisha was his favorite wife.

...Narrated Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaybar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." (Bukhari, Military Expeditions, 5.4428, with small mechanical edits)

What was the Jewish community’s motive? In this hadith, Muhammad is interrogating the Jews of Khaybar. After a verbal sparring match with them, he comes to the point.

...[Muhammad] asked, “Have you poisoned this sheep?” They [some Jews] said, “Yes.” He asked, “What made you do so?” They said, “We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you.” (Bukhari, Khumus, 004.053.394; the words in brackets are added. The book version of Bukhari does not have that pasaage or I could not find it).

This next hadith says that the effects of poison lasted a long time.

Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle. (Bukhari, Gifts, 3.2617; the word in parenthesis is the translator’s)

[22] Ibn Ishaq 525.

[23] Bukhari, Military Conditions, 3.2730; Muslim, Jihad and Expeditions, 3.4366. If historians were to call this incident fanciful as the reason for expelling the Jews, then early Islam took the reason seriously.

[24] The Muslims in the last days will get the final triumph over Jews. A Jew will hide behind a stone, and it will cry out to the Muslims that there is a Jew hiding behind it, so the Muslims should come and kill him (Buhhari, Jihad, 4.2925-26).

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'" (4.2925, with small mechanical edits, and the parenthetical comments are the translator’s.)

 MARTYDOM AND THE SWORD

Martyrdom means dying for one’s faith.[1] The New Testament predicts that some disciples will die for the faith, but why? In which context? What are the rewards?

Islam has three important passages dealing with martyrdom, and we can ask the same questions. Why do Muslims die? What are the contexts of their deaths, and what are the rewards?

Early Christianity

The Theology of Martyrdom

Some passages in the New Testament deal with martyrdom.

Luke 9:23-24 is about the personal cost of discipleship, and discipleship means getting training, learning. The verses say:

23 Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. 24 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it.[2] (Luke 9:23-24; cf. 14:27; Matt. 10:38-39; 16:24; Mark 8:34)

These verses appear in the context of Jesus predicting his own death in Jerusalem, where he will have to pick up his cross and carry it to the place of crucifixion outside of the city and put it in the hole where Roman soldiers would hoist it up.

In the New Covenant, which the disciples could join or refuse, they had to know the terms of the agreement, the contract. All of them would have to take up their cross daily – not a one-time act. They would have to lose their old or former way of living for themselves and find their new life. Their strong attachment to money, fame, and comfort will have to be renounced in the new kingdom Jesus was ushering in.

The cross means that they must follow Jesus no matter what, on a daily basis; a “daily martyrdom” is continuous. Are they willing to join this new movement?

The next verses are still about the cost of discipleship, but it takes on another level of risk. Luke 21:12-13, 16-19 say:

12 "But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13 This will result in your being witnesses to them... 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 All men will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 By standing firm you will gain life. (Luke 21:12-13, 16-19)

These verses come in the context of the end times, when persecution would be intense. But we should not limit the passages just to that ultimate timeframe, for in one sense we are living in the end times right now (Hebrews 1:2). This intensity could happen at any time. Disciples must be willing to be delivered to the authorities of various sorts – religious or secular – so that we can be witnesses to them.

We shall see, below, that Paul the apostle and others fulfilled these verses. But the trouble does not stop there for the disciples. Sometimes even family members will betray the new follower and learner of Jesus and turn him over to death by the authorities.

This persecution and possible death happens in the Islamic world, when a Muslim converts to Christ.[3]

But the disciple should stand firm, and no hair will be harmed. This promise of no harm cannot be literal, since he may lose his life, but the image refers to no eternal or spiritual loss. This is martyrdom that does not come from waging military war, but spiritual war, by preaching the gospel.

The next verses say that some disciples may be crucified by the Jerusalem religious establishment or its agents. One verse reads:

34 Therefore I am sending you [the Jewish leadership] prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. (Matt. 23:34)

And another one says:

2 They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. (John 16:2)

The context of Matt. 23:34 is Jesus’ lengthy denunciation of the Jerusalem religious establishment and its agents. The second-person pronoun “you” and “your” addresses them directly. And John 16:2 appears in the context of Jesus’ final words to his disciple before being arrested. Both verses say religious leaders will kill and crucify some of Jesus’ disciples and believe they render service to God.

The apostle James, one of the twelve, was not directly killed by the religious establishment, but by Herod Agrippa, who was zealous for the religious law, as we shall see, below.

Before Paul’s conversion he used to persecute and imprison disciples, and he approved of Stephen’s martyrdom – the first one in recorded church history – when Paul stood by, while the crowd stoned Stephen to death (Acts 6:11-8:1). Paul thought he was serving God, and so did those who arrested Stephen. “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place [the temple] and against the law,” said the false witnesses (Acts 6:13).

In the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11 the author extols the courage of men and women of God in the past:

36 ...Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. 37 They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated – 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground. (Hebrews 11:36-38)

The author goes on to say (12:1) that since we believers are surrounded with “such a great cloud of witnesses” (those great men and women in the past in the Hall of Faith), we should “throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles” us and “run with perseverance the race” of our course of life.

Thus, martyrdom tests our level of commitment and purifies and strengthens us.

The final verse in this brief section on martyrdom in early Christianity is about specific persecution of the church of the city Smyrna, in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The verse says:

10 Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life. (Revelation 2:10)

Jesus speaks to the apostle John the revelator and tells the church through John that the members must be faithful during persecution, even to the point of death. To encourage them, Jesus reminds them of the crown of life – eternal life. The context of this promised gift is that these Christians were already converted and committed to Christ.

Their future martyrdom would not guarantee them a place in heaven, for the born-again experience (John 3:3) already assured them of that. Rather, during their tough times, they may consider wavering and wobbling and turn back from following Christ.

He has to remind them that a crown of life awaits those who remain faithful. Christians who understand Biblical theology do not draw the conclusion that martyrdom gets them a fast-track to heaven in a religious war or even after suffering unjust persecution.

Examples of Martyrs

Christians in the early church fulfilled and carried out these verses on being persecuted and even dying for their faith. Peter and James were the two closest disciples of Jesus, the inner core.[4] Though Paul was not part of the inner core because he converted after the crucifixion and resurrection, he too saw the risen Jesus, though Paul was the last of the apostles to do so, as though “abnormally born” (his words in 1 Corinthians 15:7).

All three of them had a reason to pick up swords to fight their way out of persecution. Yet none of them died as holy warriors. They passed away as godly peaceful martyrs preaching the good news and teaching the faith.

Peter

Peter, the fisherman from Galilee, lived a full life attuned to the new kingdom, after the death and resurrection of Jesus and Pentecost (Acts 2). Peter was changed, but his change would get tested.

He and John the apostle faced a trial before the Sanhedrin or the high court of Jerusalem (Acts 4:1-22). Though ordered to stop teaching, they kept doing what they were called to do. Then he and the other apostles were arrested, imprisoned, released by an angel, re-arrested, flogged, and told not to preach again. At no time did he disobey God and stop preaching his message (Acts 5:17-42). He initiated civil disobedience for a godly cause, the gospel, an initiative that has inspired persecuted peoples everywhere for many centuries afterwards.[5]

About ten years later, Herod Agrippa arrested Peter and threw him in jail. Yet an angel helped him escape, so he went back to the church, who had been praying for him. He told them what had happened. He thought it best to leave, and no doubt took his wife with him (Acts 12:1-19). Sometime after Herod’s death (Acts 12:19-24), Peter and she came back to the capital, where he continued to lead the church there (Acts 15:1-35). At a time unknown to us, Peter and his wife seem to have left Jerusalem and Galilee for good.[6] Eventually they made their way to Rome (cf. 1 Peter 5:13). Church tradition takes up the events that occurred in their lives.

When Peter and his wife arrived in the huge city, a community of Christians thrived. This was to be their new home. The community realized right away that Peter had evolved into a great leader. He was part of the inner core of the twelve disciples. He told his stories that he had witnessed firsthand, as an eyewitness of Jesus. Peter was soon given – or maybe it happened naturally and gradually – the position of the bishop of Rome, the first one.[7]

Then tragedy struck. If this tradition can be believed, his wife was arrested and then led away to be executed. We do not know the reason, but it was surely because of being persecuted for the gospel. He tried to comfort her in her inevitable death by focusing on the temporariness of life and the eternity of heaven. “My dear, remember the Lord,” he told her. She was going home, and he would see her soon, hoping to encourage her.[8]

Then he too was martyred under Nero (ruled 54-68), by being crucified upside down because, presumably, he felt unworthy to be crucified right-side up, as Jesus was. A third-century Roman elder could still point to the cemetery where Peter was buried in Rome.[9]

Peter joined his wife at last, in heaven.

James

Like Peter, James was also a member of the inner core of the twelve disciples. He is about to learn the lessons of trials and death. As Jesus was headed toward Jerusalem where, he foreknew, death awaited him, James’s mother asked him to allow her two sons (John the apostle was the other son) to sit on either side of Jesus, left and right, in his kingdom.

Jesus replied with an answer they did not fully understand. He asked, “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they quickly and confidently answered. But the cup refers to suffering and possibly death (Matt. 20:20-28). In James’s case, he was hauled before the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:17-42). Like Peter, he too was flogged, but stood firm for the gospel.

The bitterest cup of suffering came about ten years later. Herod Agrippa was zealous to keep the law and sought the favor of the Jerusalem religious establishment.[10] He arrested James, and before anyone in the church had time to react, Herod ordered him beheaded in about A.D. 44.

James had indeed drunk the cup of suffering, even death.[11]

Paul

Paul used to persecute the church, in an extra-zealous season of his life, and he did it out of love for the law and service to God (Acts 8:1, 3; 9:1-9; 22:4; 1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13; Philippians 3:6; 1 Timothy 1:13). But then he too had his own Pentecost, so to speak. He was on the road to Damascus, when a light flashed around him. He heard a voice asking him why he was persecuting him (Jesus, that is, the church). Scales covered his eyes, and he had to be led by the hand to Damascus. The powerful became the helpless.

While fasting, he got prayer from a disciple, and the scales fell off his eyes. The “violent” (Paul’s word in Titus 1:13) persecutor became the peaceful apostle who proclaimed his message without the sword.

It was at this change of heart and new direction that Jesus said he was going to show Paul how much he would suffer for Jesus’ name (Acts 9:15-16). Time would tell how accurate that prophecy would become.

The persecutions, including beatings, stoning, riots, and imprisonment from which Paul suffered are too numerous to sketch out here, but towards the last one-fourth of the book of Acts, he was arrested by Jewish authorities and then protected and taken to Rome by the Roman authorities. After a series of complicated court appeals, charges, counter charges, and narrow escapes, he found himself under house arrest in Rome for two years. He was permitted to preach and had a certain freedom (Acts 28:11-30).

The strongest evidence, taking Acts and 1 and 2 Timothy into consideration, though scholars debate the question, says that Paul was acquitted, probably because no one appeared to testify against him. He was released and left Rome.

Then he came back to the capital about two years later, whereupon he was re-arrested, found guilty, and beheaded, tradition says, by Nero, in about A.D. 65-66.[12]

Paul writes his departing words, which some have used on their gravestones today:

6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day – and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing. (1 Timothy 4:6-8)

The words perfectly encapsulate Paul’s life on earth and his hope for a reward in heaven.

Early Islam

The Theology of Martyrdom

We turn now to Islam and three passages that speak of martyrdom: Quran 61:10-12; 4:74; and 9:111.

Quran 61:10-12

In Quran 61:10-12, the Arabic word "jihad" (root is j-h-d) is the context to trade in this life (the currency) for the life to come (the benefit the martyr gets).[13] The verses read:

10 You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle [j-h-d] for His cause with your possessions and your persons – that is better for you, if only you knew – 12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph.[14] (Quran 61:10-12)

The textual context of vv. 10-12 reveals five themes.

First, Muhammad scolds the hypocrites (nominal Muslims) for promising to do things, but not following through, in the context of fighting in solid lines or ranks in the cause of Allah (vv. 3-4). This faction of “conscientious objectors” does not wish to join Muhammad in his wars.

Second, it is interesting that the chapter is entitled “Solid Lines” because of v. 4; Allah loves it when his soldiers line up neatly in battle.

Third, the word “fighting” in v. 4 comes from qital (root is q-t-l), which means only warring, slaying, slaughtering, and killing.

Fourth, Muhammad appeals to Moses and Jesus as inspirations because they too encountered resistance from their followers (vv. 5-6; 14). Muhammad is just like them and better.

Finally, Allah tells his prophet that it is Islam, despite the opposition, which will prevail over all other religions (vv.7-9). Thus, the context of Quran 61:10-12 is warfare (q-t-l), and it will overcome Judaism and Christianity.

Interpreting Quran 61:10-12 shows that the divine bargain has death as the currency behind it. The qitalist is the seller, and Allah is the buyer. What do Allah and his followers get in the exchange? The martyrs receive the forgiveness of sins and heaven, and Allah receives complete devotion to him in establishing his community and religion. Allah has sent Muhammad as his messenger with the truth – the final answer – which must win out over all other religions (v. 9).

Also, the bargain apparently saves even Muslims from a painful torment in hell. This image of humans suffering in hell, which includes even reluctant and disobedient Muslims like the hypocrites, occurs frequently enough in the Quran (2:81, 206; 23:103; 66:8; 20:124-126, to cite only a few). The economic metaphor is effective.

Further, Muhammad guarantees martyrs a place in Islamic heaven in exchange for a struggle not only with their possessions, but also with their persons or lives. Hence, jihad in this context means more than an inner struggle against sin; jihad also must include bloodshed in these three verses.

Finally, in the bargain, Muhammad mixes salvation with works, which is bound to force Muslims to strive hard (j-h-d) to earn their place in heaven. Hence, martyrdom is the ultimate good work.[15]

Quran 4:74

In Quran 4:74, the second passage, the word for struggle (jihad) switches to qital (q-t-l). This word means warring, fighting and killing with swords, and it again becomes the context for fatally selling or trading this life (the currency) for the hereafter.[16] The verse says:

74 Let those of you who are willing to trade the life of this world for the life to come, fight [q-t-l] in God’s way. To anyone who fights [q-t-l] in God’s way, whether killed [q-t-l] or victorious, We shall give a great reward.[17] (Quran 4:74)

The context of this verse consists of warfare (q-t-l) outside of Medina and strife within the city between Muhammad and a faction of hypocrites, some of whom want only the spoils of war, and others of whom want peace, prayer, and almsgiving. Muhammad, however, chooses the warpath, along with forced prayer and forced almsgiving, two of the Five Pillars in Islam.

Moreover, Muhammad splits the world in two: believers and unbelievers in the context of warfare or q-t-l (v. 76). A believer fights (q-t-l) for God, but an unbeliever fights (q-t-l) for an unjust cause and for Satan. So the world is divided up into Dar-al-Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar-al-Kufr (Abode of Unbelief), which belongs therefore to Dar-al-Harb (Abode of War). This means that Islam may wage war on unbelief, because this holy warfare – both q-t-l and j-h-d – eliminates the disciples of Satan.

If a civilization does not come under the control of Islam, then ipso facto it perpetuates injustice, so Islam needs to subjugate the civilization in order to establish justice.

The interpretation of Quran 4:74 is simple enough.

First, the trade or selling of one’s life forms the currency in which one conducts the trade with the deity. Allah demands a Muslim’s whole life in the context of warfare. As a return payment, Allah gives the martyr Islamic heaven. In this scenario Allah receives the establishment of his true religion and guidance.

Second, the short verse piles on violent and bloody qital in various forms, three times. This word clearly does not mean a struggle with sin only in the soul.

Finally, a qitalist fights in God’s cause or way, and two results ensue: either he lives to fight another day so that maybe he can be martyred, or he dies in battle and securely goes to Islamic heaven, completing the ultimate good work.

Quran 9:111

In Quran 9:111, the third and final passage, Muhammad continues using qital (q-t-l) in its various forms as the currency for death in battle. The verse says:

111 God has purchased the persons and possessions of the believers for the Garden – they fight [q-t-l] in God’s way: they kill [q-t-l] and are killed [q-t-l] – this is a true promise given by Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an. Who could be more faithful to his promise than God? So be happy with the bargain you have made: that is the supreme triumph.[18] (Quran 9:111)

The textual context of Quran 9:111 shows Muhammad scolding the hypocrites who finished building a mosque while he was away in Tabuk (vv. 107-110). They asked him to bless it when he returned to Medina, but instead he ordered it torn down. In contrast to the hypocrites, in the verses after 9:111, Muhammad defines what true believers are: they do good works, bow down and prostrate themselves and forbid what is wrong (v. 112).

Finally, the textual context says that Muslims ask their prophet if they should pray for their polytheistic relatives. He orders them not to, inventing a story about Abraham who had prayed for his polytheist father, but who changed his mind and washed his hands of his father, after Abraham learned that he was the enemy of God. If Abraham prayed for his father only because he had made an earlier arrangement with him, but then washed his hands of him, why would Muslims pray for their relatives and ancestors (vv. 113-116)?

Thus, the textual context is made up of local verbal and political fighting (j-h-d and q-t-l); squabbling with his internal enemies like the hypocrites (cf. Quran 9:4, 73, and 123); and disagreement with and correction of his uninformed Muslims who want to pray for their polytheist ancestors and relatives.

The interpretation of 9:111 is the same as the previous verses. The jihadist uses his life as currency, and Allah buys it and gets his religion disseminated. In return the jihadist gets a guaranteed place in heaven.

However, Muhammad’s belief that the Torah (first five books of the Bible) and the Gospels parallel the Quran on martyrdom is unfounded. His knowledge of the Bible generally and the Torah and Gospels specifically was limited because he was no scholar (Quran 7:157). What he learned mainly came from storytellers and poets who circulated along the trade routes, stopping in towns to ply their verbal trade.

The Torah does say 3,500 years ago that the ancient Hebrews should fight to clear the land of Canaan of pagans (Deuteronomy 20:16-17), not to wage wars of worldwide conquest for Judaism. But the Torah does not have a developed theology of heaven. God’s command to them was not to win heaven in an economic bargain.

Further, as we have seen in this article, it is true that New Testament verses speak of a willingness to give up all material possessions for the kingdom of God and to lay down one’s life mainly in a spiritual way, and possibly by a physical death under severe and fatal persecution, but the verses are not found in the context of a bloody religious war.

Rather, Jesus calls his disciples to pick up their cross and follow him, not pick up a sword, hit people with it, and win heaven in a divine commerce.

Examples of Martyrs

How did the early Muslims work out and practice martyrdom? We can do no better in answering this question than by looking at three[19] of the four so-called rightly guided caliphs, who are reported to have died a martyr’s death, according to the Islamic doctrine of martyrdom.

Umar

Umar (ruled 634-644) was the second caliph who ruled after Muhammad died. Umar’s death came quickly. A Christian Persian slave confronted him and told him that the slave’s taxes were too high. Umar disagreed. A few days later the slave stabbed Umar six times while the caliph was leading prayer and proclaiming “God is greatest.”

Umar established taxes after the Islamic armies conquered new territories, so he mixed the military and the political and tax policies and other earth-bound matters with religion.

He died shortly afterwards.[20]

Uthman

The third caliph was Uthman (ruled 644-656). As time wore on during his rule, opposition grew. One of the more tragic and ominous scenes – it presaged Uthman’s assassination – took place when he and Ali (the fourth caliph, below) quarreled over the kinds of governors Uthman had appointed. Dissidents from Kufah, a city in southern Iraq, complained to Ali, and he took their complaints to Uthman. Ali predicted that Uthman would be killed, and there would be bloody civil war in the Muslim community. Uthman replied that he had done nothing wrong, but appointed men of whom Umar would have approved. Ali charged that Umar kept closer scrutiny of his appointees and flogged them if he had heard a single dissentious word from them. Instead, Uthman allowed rebelliousness to fester.

Ali left him, and Uthman went right into the mosque.[21] A man there stood up and said, “If you wish, by God, we will cause the sword to judge between us and you – ourselves and you, by God!” Uthman told him to sit down and be quiet.[22]

Matters got worse from there. While he was reading the Quran in his residence, the assailants fought their way past his servants and guards and stabbed him. His blood still stained the copy of the Quran, when it was discovered later.

Uthman too mixed politics and conquests and public policies with religion and died from the toxic mixture.[23]

Ali

Ali (ruled 556-661) was the fourth caliph and was Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law. In 661 he met a violent death. Two assassins lay in wait for him. When he walked through the door of the mosque in Kufah, a garrison town in southern Iraq, one of them struck him on the top of his head with the assassin’s sword.

They had listened to a woman who said the one of them could marry her if he took revenge for Ali’s crushing the Kharijites, the religious-political faction that seceded from the caliph.[24]

In his last will and testament, which survived, remarkably, he writes to his main two sons Hussain and Hasan: Muhammad is Allah’s servant and messenger “whom he sent with right guidance over every other even though the idolaters abhor it” (Quran 9:33, 61:9, 48:28). Ali believed in jihad, also writing: “Fear God, fear God with regard to jihad in the path of God with your property and your lives”[25]

Politics and armed conflict within Islam itself in a Civil War was the context of Ali’s death.

Conclusion

The New Testament doctrine of martyrdom teaches that the believer may suffer unjust persecution from preaching the gospel alone. In no way does the New Testament use the terms of a business transaction. Instead, it recognized the sociological fact that early Christianity was in competition with other religions, like Judaism and paganism. As the new religion rubbed against the earlier two, sparks flew. The new “sectarians” or Christians were in the powerless position and so were on the receiving end of persecution that sometimes resulted in death, in the extreme cases.

It was not too difficult to predict that in the heated religious environment of the larger ancient Mediterranean world, some competitors would believe that persecuting the new “threatening” religion would have to happen, inevitably; the new religion must be confronted and eliminated.

But Jesus had not picked up the sword to attack people. He died an unjust death – though planned and used by God, according to New Testament theology – in Jerusalem at the hands of his persecutors.

His later followers walked in his footsteps. They too suffered sometimes from unjust persecution and were put to death in notable cases. This martyrdom has nothing to do with Christians’ initiating military war and imposing taxes and flogging people in the Roman empire.

Rather, violence was inflicted on the peaceful Christians. In no recorded case in early Christianity are these nonaggressive and peaceful examples contradicted. The warpath of Emperor Constantine in the fourth century and the Medieval crusaders does not set the institutional genetic code in the very origins of Christianity in the New Testament.

Only Jesus does. And he and his disciples turned the world upside down by simple proclamation.

Islam takes a different path. Three important Quranic passages covering martyrdom appear in the context of jihad and qital, and both words signify, in their context, warfare: 61:10-12; 4:74; and 9:111. The passages recognize that the jihadist needs a religious motive to risk his life, in addition to gaining wealth and riches after a conquest.

That is, what if the Islamic army lost? Or what if a jihadist or qitalist died in battle, whether the army won or lost? He needed the promise of eternal life. The passages set up an economic exchange or transaction. The jihadist or qitalist is the seller, and Allah is the buyer. The seller gives up his life as the currency, and in exchange he gets heaven. The buyer gets to expand his religion around the world. It is no wonder that these verses can be viewed as setting up the economy of death in early Islam – and even throughout Islamic history.

Muhammad set the institutional genetic code for his followers. He waged war, and his followers walked in that path. Three caliphs died from the aftermath of many wars. They died violent deaths – assassinations by the sword or a dagger. None of these leaders were nonviolent. None of them died from the unjust violence that arises against peaceful and righteous preaching alone. Their assassinations were the direct result of mixing taxes, conquests, power politics, and the sword with religion. And they died from the toxic mixture.

Islam therefore incorporated aggressive or active violence into the doctrine of martyrdom. That is, Islam is permitted to wage war, and Muslims died in it. So they become martyrs.[26]

[1] In the Greek of the New Testament and early Christianity, “martyr” originally meant “witness” for one’s faith. But its definition soon evolved to mean anyone who dies for his faith. In the Quran shahid (sh-h-d), a witness or martyr, appears many times, e.g. 2:23, 133, 143, 282; 3:98, 99, 140; 4:33, 41, 69, 72, 135, 159, 166; 5:8, 44, 117; 24:4, 6, 13, to reference only the noun in the Medinan chapters. Islam, as we shall see, takes “martyr” – one who dies for his religion – in a different direction.

[2] The New International Version is used in this article, unless otherwise noted. If readers would like to see other translations, they can go to biblegateway.com.

[3] The proof of these death threats for converting to Christ can be searched all over the web. Type in key words like “Muslim conversion,” “apostate,” or “apostasy” into a search engine. See, for example, David Charter, “Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith,” Timesonline, Sept. 11, 2007. Accessed Aug. 1, 2011.

[4] James’s brother John was also part of the inner core of three, but he did not die a martyr’s death, so he is not included in this article.

[5] Eusebius, Church History, 5.24. Eusebius is quoting Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, (fl. 190s) describing Christian martyrs who were inspired by Peter’s words.

[6] However, Peter and his wife may have gone back to visit people or honor a festival. People in the ancient world were much more mobile than we realize. But we just do not know if he returned. On his travels he may have preached to the Jewish Diaspora in Pontus and Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, all in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). Eusebius (3.4) may be getting this idea from Peter’s first epistle (1 Pe. 1:1). Again we just do not know. But it is certain that he landed in Corinth. He achieved so much fame and admiration that a faction grew up around him, in competition with Paul (1 Co. 1:12; 3:22), who founded the church in the city. Paul had to write that all of the apostles belong to the people (1 Co. 3:21-23).

[7] Eusebius 3.1, 4.

[8] Ibid. 3.30. Eusebius is quoting Clement of Alexandria, (c.155-c.220), scholar-teacher in that city, Miscellanies VII.11.63.

[9] Ibid. 2.25 and 3.1. Eusebius refers to Gaius, a Roman presbyter.

[10] Baker Encyclopedia of Bible People, ed. Mark Water (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 301.

[11] Eusebius records the tradition that says the guard who took James to Herod’s court was so moved when he saw James testify that he too admitted he was a Christian and was beheaded with the apostle (2.9).

[12] Ibid. 2.25, 3.1.

[13] Jihad can mean “to toil, exert strenuously, overload (a camel), be diligent, struggle, strive after . . . strive with might.” (Omar, Dictionary, 105). But in many contexts it can mean “holy war.”

[14] M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, The Quran, rev. ed. (New York: Oxford, 2010). The words in brackets are mine. The word "bargain" (t-j-r) can also mean “to traffic,” “to trade,” “be in business,” and in its noun form “trade,” “mercantile affairs,” “business,” and “bargain” (Quran 2:16, 282; 4:29; 9:24; 24:37; 35:29; 62:11). All of them convey the central meaning of an economic exchange. But in these verses the meaning comes in the context of laying down one’s life for the cause in jihad (Omar, Dictionary, 74). The historical context of Chapter 61 is difficult to pin down, but it may concern the battle of Uhud in 625. Also, Muslims expelled the Jewish Nadir tribe from Medina in August 625 on the charge of refusal to pay blood-wit (compensation for loss of life) and a revelation that members of the tribe were attempting to assassinate him. The larger historical context of Quran 61:10-12, then, is warfare with the Meccans and internal conflict in Medina, all of which the Muslim community managed to overcome. For the historical context of the three Quranic passages, see Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation the Meaning of the Holy Quran, 11th ed., (Belleville, Maryland: Amana, 2004), and his introductions to each chapter. If readers would like to see various translations of the Quran, they may go to the website quranbrowser.com and type in the references.

[15] One hadith says: “Narrated Abdullah bin Abi Aufa: Allah's Apostle said, ‘Know that paradise is under the shades of swords’" (Bukhari, Jihad, 4.2818; with small mechanical edits). The “shades of swords” means dying in a jihad, and paradise is guaranteed.

And this hadith says that paradise is gained by martyrdom in jihad:

Narrated Al-Mughira bin Shua: Our prophet told us about the message of our Lord that "Whoever amongst us is killed will go to paradise." Umar asked the prophet, "Is it not true that our men who are killed will go to paradise and their's (i.e. those of the Pagan's) will go to the (Hell) fire?" The prophet said, "Yes." (Bukhari, ibid. 4.2817, with small mechanical edits; the parenthetical notes are the translator’s; the note in brackets is added.)

This hadith says that no one would wish to return to this earthly world, except the martyrs, so that they could die again.

The Prophet said: "Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world, even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again in Allah’s cause." (Bukhari, ibid. 4.2795, with slight mechanical changes; parenthetical comments are the translator’s; cf. 36, 97, 2795, 2790).

The martyrs get beautiful dark-eyed houris or virgins in heaven.

They are called so [fair or light females with dark eyes] as one’s eyesight is perplexed while looking at them, and also because of the intense blackness of their irises and intense whiteness of the sclerotic coat of their eyes . . . . (Bukhari, ibid. 4.6, [chapter 6], with slight mechanical alterations; the words in brackets have been added.)

This one says that Islamic paradise has one hundred grades that are reserved for the mujahadeen or jihadists (note the three letter root j-h-d in mujahideen and jihad).

...The prophet said, "Paradise has one hundred grades which Allah has reserved for the Mujahidun who fight in Allah’s Cause, and the distance between each of two grades is like the distance between heaven and the earth. So when you ask Allah (for something), ask for the Al-Firdaus which is the middle (best) and the highest part of Paradise. (Bukhari, ibid. 4.2790, with slight mechanical alterations; parenthetical comments are the translator’s.)

The hadith are searchable online at the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement, under the aegis of the University of Southern California.

[16] Omar, Dictionary, 442-43.

[17] Abdel Haleem,’s translation; my bracketed insertions. The key word "trade" (sh-r-aa or sh-r-y) can mean, depending on the context, “to buy, sell, purchase, conclude a sale, give or take in exchange” (cf. Quran 2:16, 41, 79, 90, 102, 174, 175, 207; 3:77, 179, 187; 4:44; 5:44, 106; and 12:20, 21; 16:95; 31:6). The martyr trades or sells his life in qital or war and buys a reward with it – up in heaven (Omar, Dictionary, 289). Three different passages reveal that Quran 4 occurred in nearly a three-year span: after the Battle of Uhud in 625 in which Islam lost 70 holy warriors (vv. 1-35); the so-called Prayer of Fear in which Muhammad instructs his soldiers how to pray during a military campaign in 626 (v. 101-103); and during still another military expedition in 627, in which he instructs his soldiers how to perform ablutions when no water is available (sand is used) (v. 43). Whichever timeframe Quran 4:74 fits into, the overall historical context shows Muhammad establishing his community in Medina during warfare outside of the city.

[18] Abdel Haleem’s translation; my bracketed insertions. This verse repeats the Arabic word "purchased" (sh-r-aa or sh-r-y) in Quran 4:74, but it uses a new word for "bargain" (b-aa-‘ or b-y-’) and can mean, depending on the context, “to sell, trade, buy” . . . or “merchandizing, barter, to sell to one another, exchange; to make a contract, make a covenant . . . to exhibit, offer goods for sale” (cf. 2:254, 275, 282; 14:31; 24:37; 48:10; 18; 60:12; 62:9). Though the words are different, their semantics overlaps with the other Arabic words in the previous two passages (Omar, Dictionary, 70). The historical context of Quran 9:111 sees Muhammad returning from a military expedition against the Byzantine Empire in 630, two years before his death in 632 in the Tabuk campaign. The historical context of Quran 9:111, then, is warfare (q-t-l) on a large scale against the Byzantines.

[19] Recall that Abu Bakr was the first caliph (r. 632-634). He is not included in this article because he did not die a martyr’s death from battle, but from a sickness.

[20] Tabari 14.90.

[21] Ibid. 15.141-43. It is difficult to take Ali’s criticisms of Uthman’s weaknesses seriously. Uthman did flog leaders, suppress a rebellion in the Egypt-Tunisia area, and exile rebels or talk with them.

[22] Ibid. 15.144.

[23] Ibid. 15.205-06.

[24] Ibid. 17.215-16.

[25] Ibid. 17.221. This Quranic verse is translated by the Tabari translator.

[26] It should be pointed out that sometimes Muslims died while preaching, but in early Islam armies are never far behind. These preachers can also be considered martyrs; further, so can these five who do not fight in a jihad.

Narrated Abu Huraira: “Allah's Apostle said, ‘Five are regarded as martyrs: They are those who die because of plague, abdominal disease, drowning or a falling building etc., and the martyrs in Allah's Cause.’” (Bukhari, Jihad, 4.2829, with small mechanical edits).

The last reason, “Allah’s cause,” indeed refers to jihad, but the other acts throw the Islamic definition of martyr wide open.

CONCLUSION

Here, at last, we summarize, with some analysis, the major differences between the two religions, side by side, so to speak.

Geopolitical Holy Sites, Warfare, and Taxes

Early Christianity and Islam differ widely on these issues.

Early Christianity

When Jesus was just twelve years old, his parents went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover (Luke 2:41-52). He taught in the temple, and called it his Father’s house (vv. 46-49). There is no doubt he had an attachment to it. But he also grew in stature and wisdom and favor (v. 52). The Jerusalem religious establishment did not like the grownup Jesus and many times looked for opportunities to arrest him.

How would he choose to respond? Stoop to their level and attack them or go in another direction?

In Jesus’ culture, the larger Roman empire, ruling the known world involved raising and sending out armies that took power and resources away from people. Hypothetically and only potentially, he could have formed secret societies out in the desert and sent out assassination hit squads to kill his opponents, while at the same time he could have sent out teams of preachers to proclaim some sort of gospel, to inform people that he was starting a new movement, and anyone who wished to join him may come out to see him. He could have raised a militia and conducted guerilla warfare against synagogues and villages that may have rejected him. He had the motive and the means to go down this path, for other messianic figures in his days did exactly that.

Then he might have been able to take on Jerusalem and maybe Rome itself. However, he rejected that path.

If his path began with stones at the temple, a geopolitical sacred site, his path did not end there. He foresaw that his new movement would have to expand beyond the temple and even Israel itself. He said during his ministry that he is greater than the temple (Matt. 12:6). In a sense he outgrew the sacred place and turned his body – the body of Christ – into the temple of God. He did not fight for the stony temple by picking up a sword. He rose above his own violent culture. He chose a higher path. He decided to proclaim the kingdom of God which can penetrate all cultures at all times.

In his ministry, a major theme was keeping the kingdom of God distinct from the kingdom of Caesar. His kingdom teaching in the Gospels, the church’s progress in Acts, and the apostolic teaching in the epistles reflect this path of peace.

Nothing epitomizes the separate kingdoms more clearly than money and taxes, for behind them resides political power, backed by the sword. A thorough review is therefore in order.

The most revealing passage about the two separate kingdoms and political power and taxes is found in the Gospels. In the context of paying taxes, Jesus said:

24 "Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?" 25 "Caesar’s," they replied. He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s."[1] (Luke 20:24-25; cf. Matt. 22:19-21; Mark 12:15-17)

Thus, Jesus hands the power to collect taxes over to Caesar. There is nothing immoral in a government collecting them for such things as the relief of poverty, administration, and upkeep of the roads, the military, and law enforcement. However, God’s kingdom does not worry about such matters, when it comes to imposing and collecting such taxes by law backed by the police and military and courts – the sword. Now the kingdom of God does not have to get enmeshed in bloody wars and the subsequent confiscation of people’s property, both real and monetary. The kingdom does not have to sue citizens or maintain a huge bureaucracy to ensure they pay up, threatening them with the sword.

Likewise, his followers – the early Christians – did not become so attached to things like stones that they picked up swords, raised a militia, and attacked people to get their wealth and property, whether a pagan temple, a Jewish synagogue, or even the Jerusalem temple itself. They kept the two kingdoms separate. “For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Colossians 1:13).

The use of the physical sword found its proper place in the kingdom of Caesar (Romans 13:4).

The metaphorical sword found its proper place in the kingdom of God: “Take ... the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17); and “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword” (Hebrews 4:12).

Early Islam

Muhammad’s ancestors were devoted to the pagan black stone in Mecca, walking around it. He too used to circle it and touch and kiss it. When he preached his new religion, he continued his devotion to the stone. And he said to the Meccans, “You have your religion and I have mine” (Quran 109:6). But Islam offended them, since he preached against their religion. In 622 he was driven out of Mecca, and he went about 250 miles to the north, in the city of Medina. He concluded it was unjust that the Meccans deprived him of his hometown and the main object of veneration.

Now he had a choice. “Let harm be requited by an equal harm, though anyone who forgives and puts things right will have his reward from God Himself” (Quran 42:40).

Would he relinquish the stone or fight to get it back?

He chose to fight. All dates are A.D.

From 622 to 632 he either sent out or went out on seventy-four expeditions, ranging from small raids and assassinations to large-scale wars. We have surveyed only a very small number of them. In 623 he conducts raids on Meccan caravans (except one time) with limited success.

In 624 he won a surprise victory against them and got the spoils of war. This victory is called the Battle of Badr, named after wells on the north-south trade route along the Red Sea, about eighty miles from Medina (two or three days journey).

In 625, they engage in the Battle of Uhud, named after a hill near Medina. That was a minor defeat that, upon Muhammad’s further reflection, was really a draw.

In 627, the Meccans muster out thousands of soldiers and go up to Medina. Muhammad dug a trench to stop their cavalry, hence the name Battle of the Trench. After a month the Meccans withdraw, gaining nothing.

In 628 he signs a treaty with them, so peace won the day, but things fall apart shortly afterwards. Yet he negotiated a treaty so that he could take a short pilgrimage to the black stone in Mecca a year later, and he does. The Meccans leave him unmolested, while he was in the city. Apparently they were willing to keep their religion, while he could have his. But his army grew.

In early 630 he conquers the city with 10,000 soldiers and takes the black stone. Equal harm was answered by equal harm. Victory at last. But he is not finished. Shortly after that he wins another battle against the pagans who lived around Mecca.

Then in late 630 he is so powerful he leads 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers to the far north to wage war on the Byzantines who never mustered out. He did manage to extract payment from disunified and small tribes who must have been impressed with such a large army. Along this warpath he also collected the spoils of war. The Quran reflects this rise of his military.

Finally, he expels pagans from the Kabah shrine (Quran 9:28), just as they had done to him.

Nothing epitomizes these conquests more than money and taxes, backed by the sword. In Chapter 9 of the Quran, reflecting the events in 630, he imposes taxes on the three competing religions surrounding him: Judaism, Christianity, and paganism (if they converted to Islam), that is to say, everyone in his culture. This next passage speaks of the jizyah or poll (submission) tax in the context of warfare against the People of the Book (Jews and Christians). It reads:

29 Fight those of the People of the Book who do not [truly] believe in God and the Last days, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice, until they pay the tax [jizyah] and agree to submit.[2] (Quran 9:29)

What was the justification for these attacks? Verse 29 says, “[W]ho do not obey the rules of justice.” The letters and negotiations conducted while Islam expanded often said that Islam is justice. If the nation or tribe or governor or king does not follow Islam, then they are unjust. And an unjust nation, tribe, governor, and king deserve to be attacked until they submit to justice – Islam.

That is a perfect description of a holy war.

This passage in the same chapter speaks of imposing the zakat tax on pagans:

5 ... Then fight and slay [q-t-l] the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity [zakat], then open the way for them.[3] (Quran 9:5)

The zakat tax is the third of the Five Pillars of Islam,[4] the foundation of the religion; the tax is legally and religiously imposed, designated for the poor, but first going to the state. In the Arabian peninsula pagans had to convert (and pay) or die.

In addition to pagans, Muslims are not exempt from the zakat tax

110 Keep up the prayer and pay the prescribed alms [zakat]... 277 Those who believe, do good deeds, keep up the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms [zakat] will have their reward with their Lord[5].... (Quran 2:110, 277)

Thus, Islam merges political power, conquests, taxes with a sacred text and religion. Muhammad got control over all of it.

The separation of the mosque and state is not clearly maintained, for both are embodied in the one person of Muhammad. Many passages say that to obey Allah is to obey Muhammad and vice-versa (e.g. Quran 8:1, 13, 20, 24, 46; 9:54, 62-63, 71, 84, 91; 47:33; 48:10, 17).[6] If conquered peoples did not pay up, he punished them with war. A bureaucracy soon sprang up to keep track of all the resources flowing into Medina, the early capital of Islam.

Nothing in history is inevitable, as the saying goes. It can only be left to the imagination what might have been, if Muhammad had risen above his violent culture and relinquished the black stone. Then the raids would have never happened, and his band of raiders would have never grown into a militia, which grew into an army. He could have said that something greater than a black stone is here: Islam. “‘You I have your religion, I have mine.’ Come willingly and voluntarily to the sacred site I have set up in Medina, my sacred mosque!”

Preaching and persuasion alone is the answer; it provides people with freedom of religion and conscience. People vote with their feet. If the pagans had liked Islam, they would have come (and many did, as time wore on). But if they did not like it, they could have their religion and go in peace. This path of peace, however, was not followed.

Muhammad’s successors, the four rightly guided caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali), sent out Islamic armies over vast territories. Time and again they wrote letters to tribes and cities even emperors and kings, saying that if they surrender, they only have to pay the jizyah. If not, they will die in battle. Sometimes the tribes fought – and usually lost. At other times they just surrendered before the battle began. Therefore the caliphs also became religiously and politically authoritarian. They too had to keep track of the conquest money, so they developed a bureaucracy. And they too would punish any newly conquered tribe or city that did not pay their taxes.

They indeed picked up swords and waged war, as armies consolidated Islamic rule in the Arab peninsula. Then they stormed out of this peninsula and conquered vast territories, taking resources and property and imposing Islamic governors and various taxes. As for the pagans, the three caliphs after the first one seem to have adopted the policy that outside of this large area pagans could remain as they are, but they still had to pay taxes.

Relations with the Jews

Early Christianity’s and Islam’s outlook on the Jews is very different.

Early Christianity

Jesus was a Jew, born in Israel to Jewish parents. When he grew up, he entered the ministry about four decades before the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. He preached to his fellow Israelites, and the average one liked him and listened carefully. Many followed him. They especially liked his healing power. He never denounced the ordinary people. But he did use strong rhetoric against the Jerusalem religious establishment and their agents. He believed they put too many burdens on people. His denunciations of them won him very few allies in that high level of his society.

They looked for ways to arrest him. And they designed several trumped up charges when he entered Jerusalem during the Passover feast. They soon induced the Roman authorities to crucify him. But the Gospels all agree that on the third day he was raised from the dead. Through all these ups and downs he showed love for his people, and he never wielded a weapon against them.

The apostles followed his outlook and attitude. They sometimes (though not always) had problems with the Jewish leadership as the apostles traveled and preached around the Mediterranean world. But they never picked up the sword against them. Paul concludes that God has not rejected his chosen people (Romans 11:1-2). Peter, the lead apostle, was called specially to minister to his fellow Jews (Galatians 2:8).

Early Islam

When Muhammad moved up to Medina in 622, he found a large and thriving Jewish community, divided into three main tribes: Qaynuqa, Nadir, and Qurayza. His civic relations with them went from tense (when he had no military in his new home city), to expulsion (when he had much more power) and then the worst of all – death and enslavement (when he had ultimate power).

All dates are A.D.

To begin with, in 625, he chases out the Qaynuqa tribe, because, he claimed, they had betrayed him. As they departed, he told them to leave their tools behind, for they had worked at the craft trades. Many of his Muslims, who had just left Mecca and also worked in the crafts, benefited from their newly acquired tools.

Later in that year he claims that the Nadir tribe had betrayed him at the Battle of Uhud. He also said they refused to pay some blood-wit money (compensation for loss of life). He drives them out of Medina and confiscates their date palms and houses.

In 627, Muhammad massacres the men of the Qurayza tribe and sells the women and children into slavery. He claimed they had betrayed him at the Battle of the Trench.

In 628 he conquers the Jews residing in Khaybar, about seventy miles to the north. He claimed that the leaders were plotting against him. Maybe it is at this time that he envisioned the entire peninsula to be free of Jews.

Finally, Caliph Umar, following him, expelled all the Jews (and Christians) from the Arab peninsula, in 635.

Thus this huge land mass has become a geopolitical holy land of sorts, reaching far beyond the black stone in Mecca and the new sacred city of Medina.

Martyrdom

Early Christianity and Islam have different views on martyrdom. In both, the institutional genetic code set by their respective founders was crucial.

Early Christianity

Jesus never picked up a sword to hit people with it. He only preached the good news of the gospel. When he died, he was falsely accused, but was actually innocent. He did not die because he was violent or collected taxes.

The apostles Peter, James, and Paul and the deacon Stephen died in the same pattern. All of them were falsely accused, but were innocent. They only preached the good news of the gospel. They did not die because they were violent or collected taxes. They are martyrs in Christianity.

Early Islam

Muhammad preached, but he also waged war and imposed taxes. He believed that Jews poisoned him, particularly one from the Jewish Khaybar community, which he had conquered in 628. He died in 632, from the effects of the poison.

All four of the caliphs waged war and imposed taxes and religion on people, with a large army standing outside the city gate. Three of them were assassinated: Umar by a disgruntled taxpayer, Uthman by a faction in power politics, and Ali by a faction taking revenge on him for his suppressing a revolt against him. And one tradition says that Abu Bakr, the first caliph, also died from poison planted by Jews, but he most likely died from natural causes, like a disease or old age.

The three caliphs who were assassinated are considered martyrs in Islam.

Religion, the Sword, and the State

Mixing religion and the state with the sword in the middle is a thorny topic.

Early Christianity

Biblical Christianity, properly understood, separates the two realms of the state and religion. Christianity hands the sword over to the state. This principle can be applied today. In the USA, for example, the government does not subsidize the church, and no church has the Scriptural right to use the sword to wage war on people.

Since the sword is in the hands of the state, Christianity takes a risk. It is no surprise that Scripture encourages the church to pray for the state.

1 I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone – 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior... (1 Timothy 2:1-3)

In these verses, the goal is peace and quiet in society, not just for Christians, but for everyone. The means to get there is holiness and righteousness, at least for the church. And there is nothing foolish if unchurched individuals decide to live by a kind of civic righteousness.

The means to live in peace and quiet is never by the sword in the hands of the institutional church or any individual taking the law into his own hands or a faction of terrorists.

When the government allows and protects, by the sword if necessary, maximum freedom without chaos, individuals can then create a happy and high quality of life for themselves: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to borrow a phrase from the Declaration of Independence

Those three social values are best for a society that lives righteously and peacefully.

Early Islam

Early Islam mixes the state and religion, and the sword is in the middle. Islamic governments to this day follow this pattern. They do not clearly distinguish between the mosque and the state. Saudi Arabia and Iran, for example, are theocratic. Many of them, particularly the Arab states, are authoritarian. All of them declare war in the name of their own country and in the name of Islam. (The Saudi flag has a sword on it.) All Islamic governments can opt to fight in Allah’s name and be perfectly consistent with the Quran.

A Saudi Muslim informed me in an email that the sword on his nation’s flag means that Islam fights injustice. However, from the study laid out in this series of articles, we learned that Islam is justice, and any nation that does not practice Islam is unjust. Therefore, the sword can strike nations that are unjust.

But this definition of justice is much too narrow for all of society, for the nations of the world.

Onward to Reform?

By now it should be clear that this study has a point of view. But it has not been pulled out of thin air; the facts and the conclusions drawn from them lead in a specific direction.

Plainly said, Islam has difficulty relating to the modern world. Islam must reform, for the good of the world.

But maybe extra-devout Muslims believe that reform is unneeded because they should not tamper with truth and justice as revealed in the Quran. If only the world would reform and come under Islam, then the world would no longer call for Islam’s reform.

However, the worldwide web will force Islam to reform or collapse within itself, no matter how much the Saudi government, for example, tries to block the web. Many (not all) people yearn for freedom. Saudi women recently joined forces to protest the illegality of their driving a car. They were crying out for freedom from religious oppression.[7]

True, some parts of the Islamic world will never surrender, but remain hard-core. Yet many people will migrate away from an extra-restrictive religion. Maybe they will choose another religion, or maybe they will go agnostic; or maybe they will not choose any religion, but still believe in God somehow.

Further, Islam must reform, or it faces abandonment. As people discover that they can live outside of Islam, which imposes heavy restrictions on them, they will gradually move away from the religion in which they were born and which they did not choose freely. They will discover other religions that offer freedom. They will discover that Islamic armies conquered vast territories and forced or virtually forced their ancestors to convert. They will discover that they are Muslims only because of these armies.

Then they will ponder a new path, one that rejects violence and heavy-handed religious laws that whip people for not keeping the Ramadan fast or for premarital sex – or that execute people who commit adultery. They will discover that they can live a new way and freely choose not to fornicate or commit adultery, but if they do, they do not have to fear government punishments, like stoning or flogging, for a private sin. They will discover that they can freely decide, without coercive “reeducation,” that they can leave Islam.

Here are some ways that Islam can reform, if it so chooses.

Muslim leaders must interpret the jihad and qital verses as culturally conditioned and restricted. They have an expiration date on them. They applied back in seventh-century Arab culture, but not today. Muhammad’s culture conducted raids and waged wars, and so did he. Arab culture chopped off hands for theft, and so did he. The Quran verses that encourage this are culturally limited and only for back then. Muhammad’s main goal was to get back to Mecca and take the Kabah shrine from the pagans. Mission accomplished.

Now all those jihad and qital verses should not be brought forward to today. Quran 9:29, which speaks of waging qital against Jews and Christians, applies only to the Tabuk campaign in 630. The verse has an expiration date.

If the Quran permits a husband to hit his wife (4:34), as was done among seventh-century Arabs, then the verse has an expiration date, and the same goes for severe punishments like chopping off hands for theft and stoning and adulterers and adulteresses to death. These old laws need to be rejected, for they no longer apply today.

But how does one distinguish between cultural verses that command, for example, pilgrimages, which the seventh-century Arabs did, from the wife-hitting verse and the jihad and qital verses? After all, some cultural practices are good or harmless.

In reply, any verse that promotes violence in society should have an expiration date on them. Any verse that promotes maximum freedom (without chaos) and a high quality of life is valid today. Any verse that promotes oppression and a low quality of life is no longer valid. Freedom and life are basic and fundamental human values that are never culturally defined or restricted, but can be applied everywhere.

The Five Pillars are a good place to start. They have cultural aspects to it, like the pilgrimage. While they may restrict an individual’s freedom (no eating during the day in the month of Ramadan), religions often have requirements. However, they do not harm materially or physically anyone or significantly restrict the freedom of society at large, if segments of society do not choose to follow that religion or any religion. In that case, they must be free.

Further, from Islam’s point of view, a strong case can be made that the Five Pillars improve a Muslim’s quality of life – at least they do not take away from society’s quality of life. But the pillars are just the beginning. Interpretive principles must emerge that deal with the unpleasant verses in the Quran.

To reinterpret the Quran verses promoting jihad and qital and other forms of violence and oppression, Islam must convene a council where many scholars and Imams, especially the radical ones, hash out this cultural interpretation of certain verses.[8]

A new interpretive school must emerge, one that honors the past, but moves beyond it and is not bound by it. Women should be invited to the council, since they are often the object of these culturally restrictive verses. It may take many council meetings to reach a reasonable interpretation and the two fundamental and timeless and cross-cultural values of freedom and life. Call it the Freedom and Life Interpretive School – or whatever. It may take many years of discussion (maybe generations). Perhaps the fanatics will walk out. (Invite them back.) But maybe some will stay and change their mind.

Whatever happens at the councils and however long it takes, Islam must find a way out and reform. Parts of the institutional genetic code that was set back in the seventh century must be broken and a new one introduced.[9]

Then, most importantly this reform must be communicated to the violent fanatics within Islam, not necessarily and only to Westerners. If the violent fanatics resist, then the moderates should keep persuading and writing, inviting them to conferences. But can the moderates persuade them, when the fanatics have fuller and wider Quranic support?

See Part 11 and Questions 6 and 21 for possible ways Islam can reform, if Muslim leaders are open to following Christians and how they reformed.

One small step: Muslims leaders must drop the (recently invented) labels “Islamophobia” and Islamophobic” (etc.) that are wrongly thrown at the critics of the negative parts of Islam, like the jihad and qital verses.

If Islam reforms, we shall have a modicum of peace in the world. If not, conflicts will continue.