Tag Archives: Islamophobia

Answering ‘164 Jihad’ Verses In Quran

Kaleef K. Karim, Aliyu Musa Misau

The religion of Islam has been degraded and vilified by those who seem to believe that they have a better understanding of the religion, compared to the consensus of scholars for the past 1400 years. These misguided individuals cite a verse here and a verse there which they believe to be violent in the sense that the verses endorse violence against innocents. They conveniently or we would prefer to say, they deliberately leave out the historical context regarding why and when these verses were revealed. When one engages with them, correcting their misunderstanding of these verse(s), they often accuse us of ‘cherry picking’!

If one is educated, surely one would understand that any text (religious or non-religious) without context is practically meaningless or has a distorted meaning. For example, a man could yell at his friend saying:

“I will beat you!”

This sentence could be problematic without its own context. But if one could know that the sentence is said in the context of playing a game, the issue would be no longer a problem. Then it could be understood that it was ‘beating’ in the context of a game not physically harming anyone.

Furthermore, we recommend and adjure people to learn about Islam from the right sources, not from individuals or the media who want to paint it negatively. Getting information from these compared to actual Muslims is like learning colours from a blind person. In other words, you can’t teach something one does not understand.

We have written the following series of articles in response to claims made by opponents that the Quran has ‘164 Jihad’ (or some put it as ‘200 Jihad’) verses in it.

In the sense they want to perpetuate this mythical claim that those ‘164 Jihad’ verses sanctions or endorses the killing of disbelievers (non-Muslims) for no reason other than being ‘non-Muslim’.

What we have done in these series of articles is responded to these false claim(s) by showing their textual contexts, backgrounds as to when they were revealed, which battles they refer to, and we’ve provided exegeses ranging from the earliest to the most contemporaneous, so that we can get a better and more comprehensive understanding of these verses.

Please click on the following articles for more information:

1. LINK – Quran 2:178, 179 | ‘Qisas’

2. LINK – Quran 2:190, 191, 192, 193, 194 |

3. LINK – Quran 2:216, 217, 218 |

4. LINK – Quran 2:225 |

5. LINK – Quran 2:244, 245 | Battle of Uhud

6. LINK – Quran 3:28 |

7. LINK – Quran 3:121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126

8. LINK – Quran 3:140, 141, 142, 143 |

9. LINK – Quran 3:146 |

10. LINK – Quran 3:151 |

11. LINK – Quran 3:152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 |

12. LINK – Quran 3:165, 166, 167, 168, 169 |

13. LINK – Quran 3:172, 173 |

14. LINK – Quran 3:188 |

15. LINK – Quran 3:195 |

16. LINK – Quran 4:71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77 |

17. LINK – Quran 4:84 |

18. LINK – Quran 4:89, 90 |

19. LINK Quran 4:91 |

20. LINK – Quran 4:94, 95 |

21. LINK – Quran 4:100, 101, 102, 103 |

22. LINK – Quran 4:104 |

23. LINK – Quran 4:141 |

24. LINK – Quran 5:32 |

25. LINK – Quran 5:33 |

26. LINK – Quran 5:35 |

27. LINK – Quran 5:82 |

28. LINK – Quran 8:1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 |

29. LINK – Quran 8:15, 16, 17, 19

30. LINK – Quran 8:39 |

31. LINK – Quran 8:40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 |

32. LINK – Quran 8:56, 57, 58, 59, 60 | Banu Qurayzah incident

33. LINK – Quran 8:61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 | Battle of Badr

34. LINK – Quran 9:3 |

35. LINK – Quran 9:5 – ‘Sword Verse’ | 9:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | Revealed: Quraysh & Banu Bakr attacked Banu Khuza’a (an ally of Muhammed) and killed many men.

36. LINK – Quran 9:13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 24 |

37. LINK – Quran 9:25, 26, 27 | Battle of Hunayn

38. LINK – Quran 9:29 ‘Jizya’ | Battle of Tabuk

39. LINK – Quran 9:36 | Battle of Hunayn

40. LINK – Quran 9:38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 50 | The Expedition of Tabuk

41. LINK – Quran 9:73, 74 | The hypocrites at Tabuk

42. LINK – Quran 9:81, 83, 86, 88 | Tabuk

43. LINK – Quran 9:91, 92 |

44. LINK – Quran 9:111 |

45. LINK – Quran – 9:120 | Tabuk expedition

46. LINK – Quran 9:122 |

47. LINK – Quran 9:123 |

48. LINK – Quran 16:106 |

49. LINK – Quran 16:110 |

50. LINK – Quran 17:16 |

51. LINK – Quran 22:19, 20, 21, 22, 23 |

52. LINK – Quran 22:39, 40 |

53. LINK – Quran 22:58, 60 |

54. LINK – Quran 22:78 |

55. LINK – Quran 22:53, 55 |

56. LINK – Quran 24:4 |

57. LINK – Quran 25:52 |

58. LINK – Quran 29:6 |

59. LINK – Quran 29:69 |

60. LINK – Quran 33:15, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27 | Battle of Khandaq

61. LINK – Quran 33:57 |

62. LINK – Quran 33:61, 62 |

63. LINK – Quran 40:28 |

64. LINK – Quran 40:71, 72 |

65. LINK – Quran 42:39, 40, 41, 42, 43 |

66. LINK – Quran 47:4 | Context: 47:1, 2, 3, 4|

67. LINK – Quran 47:20, 21 |

68. LINK – Quran 47:35 | Context: 47:31, 32, 34, 35 |

69. LINK – Quran 48:15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 | Battle of Khaybar

70. LINK – Quran 48:29 |

71. LINK – Quran 49:15 |

72. LINK – Quran 56:92, 93, 94 |

73. LINK – Quran 59:2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14 | Banu Nadir’s treachery

74. LINK – Quran 61:4 |

75. LINK – Quran 61:11, 13 |

76. LINK – Quran 61:4 | Context: 61:1, 2, 3, 4 |

77. LINK – Quran 64:14, 15, 16 |

78. LINK – Quran 65:4 |

79. LINK – Quran 66:1,2 |

80. LINK – Quran 66:9 |

81. LINK – Quran 73:20 |

82. LINK – Quran 76:8 |

Don’t forget to follow Discover The Truth on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favourite social networks.

Related Articles:

Early Expeditions And Battles Of Islam

Does the Quran order violence against the innocent?

Does Islam encourage Muslims to lie – Taqiyya?

Does the Holy Bible allow Christians to lie?

What does Islam say about Rape? [Part 1]

What does Islam say about Rape? [Part 2]

What does the Arabic word ‘Jihad’ mean?

Can Christians And Jews Be Friends With Muslims? [Part 1]

Can Christians And Jews Be Friends With Muslims? [Part 2]

Did Quraysh Persecute Muslims When They Fled To Madinah?

Did Jews Get Expelled From Arabia?

Did Muhammad Order Or Support The Killing Of Innocents?



Islam Condemns Rape

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

Kaleef K. Karim

This topic comes up frequently in the media. Whenever a person’s name begins with Omar or Ahmed (or any other Muslim name for that matter), they portray it as if the religion sanctions it as such. They do not care if the perpetrator has never practised their faith. As long as they can stir up more hatred towards Islam and Muslims, they have achieved their satanic goals, in demonizing the Muslim community.

The aim of this article is to refute the claims made by critics that ‘Islamic Law does not punish rapists’. Moreover, I have touched upon this topic before – you can read it here.

The following is an excellent excerpt on how the perpetrators of rape were dealt with in the lifetime of Prophet Muhammed (p) and the Companions. It is written by Islamic scholar Dr. Mufti Allie Haroon Sheikh (May God reward him for his efforts).

Dr. Mufti Allie (or Ali) Haroon Sheikh

Islam has not only withdrawn all its leniency on the rapist but also the wrath against the offender is in full fury. The punishment of the criminal is that it is, but the authority sitting in judgement has also been warned and instructed that here at least he should not grant any concession to the violator to whom Islam has emphasized the importance of sexual morality and along with it displayed to him the detrimental effect of forceful, violent rape. He should be reminded of the maximum freedom granted to him in satisfying his sexual appetite by approved means, but in spite of this, he wilfully transgressed the limits extended to him by Shari’ah without any disregard.

The woman who has become the victim of such brutality and is compelled to commit illegal sexual intercourse against her will is exempted from punishment as the Qur’an declares:

“But if anyone compels them, yet after such compulsion is Allah Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.” – Quran 24:33

In the days of ignorance some men subjected their slave-women to forceful harlotry for contemptible worldly gain. Since the element of coercion was utilized on these women who desired chastity, they were therefore ‘raped’ against their will.

Imam Bukhari narrates the following incident wherein a slave raped a slave girl. The culprit was brought before the court of Hadhrat Umar, who after investigating the case, sentenced the offender, but acquitted the slave girl who was forcefully raped.

“Safiya bint Ubaid: ‘A Governmental male slave tried to seduce a slave girl from the Khumus of the war booty till hedeflowered her by force against her will; therefore Umar flogged him according to the law and exiled him, but he did not flog the female slave because the slave had compelled her to indulge in illegal sexual intercourse with her consent.” – (Bukhari, op. cit. Chapter on ‘No punishment for the raped girl’ volume 2: 1027-8)

There is also another incident which occurred during the time of the Prophet (p) when a woman came out of her house to join the congregational prayer in the mosque. En-route she was forcefully grabbed by a man who raped her. She screamed and her cries alerted the people who rushed to her rescue and caught the rapist red-handed. He was then produced before the Prophet (p). The rapist confessed his guilt and he was punished according to the verdict given by the Prophet (p): And to the woman he said:

“Go, you have been forgiven by Allah.” – (Jam ’al-Fawaid, op. cit. volume 1: 287)

Therefore in forced sexual intercourse such as rape, the innocent party cannot be punished at all. On the contrary he or she is entitled to compensation in some form or the other. [1]


[1] Morality In Islam [First Edition 2004 – Printed At Ilmi Graphics] By Dr. Mufti Allie Haroon Sheikh page 236 – 237


The Arabic Word ‘Jihad’ And Its Meaning

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

Kaleef K. Karim

The word ‘Jihad’ has commonly been mistranslated as ‘war against unbelievers’ or equated to ‘terrorism’. The Arabic word ‘Jihad’ literally means ‘struggle’ or ‘strive to’ – that is, to exert oneself one way or another. It also pertains to doing good, and to fight evil, physically and mentally. Jihad can also apply when speaking a good word, or removing an obstacle on the road so that people do not get hurt. These are various meanings to the word ‘Jihad’. Let’s turn to the Quran and see what it says on the word,

Quran 25

“So do not obey the disbelievers, and strive against them with the Qur’an a great striving.” – Quran 25:52

The act of preaching and Islamic propagation using the Quran is Jihad. In another verse, people who strive to come close to God are doing the act of Jihad,

Quran 29

“And those who strive (Jahid) for Us – We will surely guide them to Our ways. And indeed, Allah is with the doers of good.” – Quran 29:69

To fight oppression physically is a form of Jihad,

“Fight in the way of God those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors.” – Quran 2:191

Although the word itself is not in the verse, it does have that meaning. Let us now look and see what Prophet Muhammed (p) said on Jihad. In Sahih Bukhari, it is reported that helping your parents out and being good to them by respecting and obeying them is ‘Jihad’.

حَدَّثَنَا مُسَدَّدٌ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ، وَشُعْبَةَ، قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا حَبِيبٌ، ح قَالَ وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ كَثِيرٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ حَبِيبٍ، عَنْ أَبِي الْعَبَّاسِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، قَالَ قَالَ رَجُلٌ لِلنَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أُجَاهِ‏ قَالَ ‏”‏ لَكَ أَبَوَانِ ‏”‏‏.‏ قَالَ نَعَمْ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏”‏ فَفِيهِمَا فَجَاهِدْ ‏”‏‏.‏
“…the Prophet, “Shall I participate in Jihad?” The Prophet said, “Are your parents living?” The man said, “Yes.” the Prophet said, “Do Jihad for their benefit.” [1]

In other instances, Prophet Muhammed (p) said, speaking a ‘just statement’ against a tyrannical ruler is one of the ‘greatest types of Jihad’,

‏ إِنَّ مِنْ أَعْظَمِ الْجِهَادِ كَلِمَةَ عَدْلٍ عِنْدَ سُلْطَانٍ جَائِرٍ ‏”‏
“Indeed, among the greatest types of Jihad is a just statement before a tyrannical ruler.” [2]

Reading the above evidences show that the Arabic word ‘Jihad’ has various meanings. Turning to academics, Professor A. Rashid, author of writes,

“The Qur’anic term most often conflated with that of violence is Jihad. The Arabic verb Jahada from which the verbal noun Jihad is derived literally means ‘to strive hard, to exert strenuous effort and to struggle.’ As a multivalent Islamic concept, it denotes any effort in pursuit of a commendable aim. Jihad is a comprehensive concept embracing peaceful persuasion (16:125) and passive resistance (13:22; 23:96; 41:34), as well as armed struggle against oppression and injustice (2:193; 4:75; 8:39). The Islamic concept of Jihad should not be confused with the medieval concept of Holy war since the actual word al-harb al-muqtaddasa is never used in the Qur’an. In Islam, a war is never holy; it is either justified or not. Moreover, is not directed at other faiths. In a statement in which the Arabic is extremely emphatic, the Qur’an insists, ‘there must be no coercion in matters of faith!’ (2:256). More than this, the protection of freedom of belief and worship for followers of other religions has been made a sacred duty of Muslims. This duty was fixed at the same time when the permission for armed struggle (Jihad al-qital) was ordained (22:39-40).” [3]

Professor Devin R. Springer

Jihad: means ‘to strive’ or ‘to struggle’ in Arabic; the term has a religious connotation, involving an outwardly directed struggle against oppression and tyranny, as well as an inwardly directed personal struggle for holiness. The spiritual Jihad in quest of holiness, or Jihad bil-nafs, is seen by most Muslims as the ‘greater Jihad.’ The concept of Jihad bil-sayf, literally ‘Jihad by the sword,’ or violent Jihad, traditionally is viewed as the ‘lesser Jihad.’ [4]

We see that the Arabic word ‘Jihad’ has many shades of meanings, such as bringing people to Islam with the Quran. Speaking a ‘just statement’ against a tyrannical ruler is one of the greatest jihads, as well as being good and respectful to your parents. Finally, physically fighting oppression, in order to be liberated from persecution is Jihad as well.


[1] Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Hadith 3
[2] Jami` at-Tirmidhi Volume 4, Book 7, Hadith 2174
[3] Encyclopedia of Islam & the Muslim World [Copyright 2004] – Professor A. Rashid Omar Page 158
[4] Islamic Radicalism and Global Jihad [Copyright 2009] By Professor Devin R. Springer, James L. Regens and David N. Edger Page 273 [Glossary]


Itsmeaning (3)

Quran 5:51 – Can Christians And Jews Be Friends With Muslims?

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

Kaleef K. Karim

Can Christians and Jews be friends with Muslims? The Quran says,

“O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your awliya: They are but awliya to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.” – Quran 5:51

When the Arabic word ‘awliya’ is translated into English as ‘friends’ (Quran 5:51), this verse appears to discourage friendly relations between Muslims, Christians and Jews. This interpretation has been accepted by some. But, many Muslim and non-Muslim scholars favour that the Arabic word ‘awliya’ should be interpreted to mean ‘guardians’, ‘allies’, ‘patrons’ and ‘protectors’, not ‘friends’, as some who have suggested.

In addition, Quran 5:51 does not allude to all Christians and Jews, it only refers to those adherents who were at war with the Muslim community, 1400 years ago. The following Quranic verse proves that 5:51 only refers to those enemies who are at war with Muslims and that they should not be befriended or make alliances with.



O ye who believe! Choose not My enemy and your enemy for allies (awliya) . Do ye give them friendship when they disbelieve in that truth which hath come unto you, driving out the messenger and you because ye believe in Allah, your Lord? If ye have come forth to strive in My way and seeking My good pleasure, (show them not friendship). Do ye show friendship unto them in secret, when I am Best Aware of what ye hide and what ye proclaim? And whosoever doeth it among you, he verily hath strayed from the right way. – Quran 60:1

The following quotes are from Muslim and non-Muslim scholars commenting on Quran 5:51. Professor Ibrahim Kalin says,

The word awliya is the plural of wali, which is rendered in most English translations of the Qur’an as ‘friend.’ According to this interpretation, the verse reads as, ‘do not take Jews and Christians as friends’. Even though the word wali mean friend in the ordinary sense of the term, in this context, it has the meaning of protector, legal guardian, and ally. This rendering is confirmed by al-Tabari’s explanation that the verse 5:51 was revealed during one of the battles (the battle of Badr in 624 or Uhud in 625) that the Muslims in Medina had fought against the Meccans. Under the circumstances of a military campaign, the verse advises the new Muslim community not to form political alliances with non-Muslims if they violate the terms of a treaty they had signed with them. It is important to note that Muslims, Jews or Christians to whom the verse represent not only religious but also socio-political communities. The meaning of ‘ally’ or ‘legal guardian’ for wali/Awliya makes sense especially in view of Ibn Qayyim’s explanation that ‘whoever forms alliance with them through a treat [ahd] is with them in violating the agreement’. [1]


Scholar Muhammad Asad

72 According to most of the commentaries (e.g., Tabari), this means that each of these two communities extends genuine friendship only to its own adherents – i.e., the Jews to the Jews and the Christians to the Christians – and cannot, therefore, be expected to be really friendly towards the followers of the Qur’an. See also 8:73, and the corresponding notes.
73 Lit., ‘the evildoing folk’: i.e., those who deliberately sin in this respect. As regards the meaning of the ‘alliance’ referred to here, see 3:28, and more particularly 4:139 and the corresponding note, which explains the reference to a believer’s loss of his moral identity if he imitates the way of life of, or – in Qur’anic terminology – ‘allies himself’ with, non-Muslims. However, as has been made abundantly clear in 60:7-9 (and implied in verse 57 of this Surah), this prohibition of a ‘moral alliance’ with non-Muslims does not constitute an injunction against normal, friendly relations with such of them as are well-disposed towards Muslims. It should be borne in mind that the term wali has several shades of meaning: ‘ally’, ‘helper’, ‘protector’, etc. The choice of the particular term – and sometimes a combination of two terms – is always dependent on the context. [2]

The Holy Qur’an Arabic text With English Translation & Short Commentary – Malik Ghulam Farid

756. The verse should not be construed to prohibit or discourage just or benevolent treatment of Jews, Christians and other disbelievers (60:9). It refers only to those Jews or Christians who are at war with Muslims and who are always hatching plots against them.
757. Jews and Christians forget their own differences and become united in their opposition to Islam. Truly, has the Holy Prophet said, ‘All disbelief forms on community’, viz., all disbelievers, however inimical to one another, behave like one when opposed to Muslims. [3]

Maulana Muhammad Ali

51a. All non-believers, whatever their own differences, had made common cause against Islam; this is what is meant by their being ‘friends of each other’. The Muslims are warned that they should not expect help or friendship from any party of them, whether Jews, Christians or idolaters. It would have been weakness of faith in the ultimate triumph of Islam if, from fear of a powerful enemy, they had sought help and friendship here and there are among a hostile people, as the next verse shows. When two nations are at war, an individual of one nation having friendly relations with the enemy nation is treated as an enemy; that is exactly what the Qur’an says here. [4]

‘Jewish Thought: An Introduction’ – Professor Oliver Leaman

There are verses in the Qur’an which suggest a negative answer to this question. The first verse appears in 5. 51 of the Qur’an and says, ‘O, you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as awliya. They are awliya to one another, and the one aming you who turns to them is of them. Truly, God does not guide wrongdoing people’ (5.51). The word awliya (sing. Wali) is commonly translated as ‘friends’. The verse appears to be a very clear statement opposing friendly relations between Muslims, on the one hand, and Jews and Christians, on the other. However, while it is true that one of the meanings of awliya is friends, it also means ‘guardians’ and ‘protectors’. According to many of the traditional commentaries on the Qur’an we are told that this verse was revealed at a particularly difficult moment in the life of the early Muslims community, and here it is necessary to describe the situation of the Muslims at this time in Arabia to put verse 5.51 within the right context. Qur’anic commentators do normally link verses with the particular context in which they were revealed, since it is this that gives them a guide to how they should be interpreted.
Before 5.51 was revealed, Muhammed and the Muslims had just migrated as a community from Mecca to Medinah. They had done so, according to the Islamic account, because of the persecution to which they were subjected at the hands of their fellow tribesmen and relatives in Mecca.
Most Meccans worshipped various idols as gods and were concerned at what would happen to the idol business given the rise of interest in the message of Muhammed within the city, even though Muhammed was himself from Mecca. Islam threatened to disrupt the economic benefits of annual pilgrimage season when people from all over the Arabian Peninsula would come to worship the may idols at the Ka’ba- a cubical structure

which the Qur’an claims was originally built by Abraham and his son, Ishmael, as a temple to the one God, before the corruption of religion in Arabia hid the monotheist message of Abraham and his successors. The prospect of the bottom falling out of the idol business could not have enthused those who made their living in it, so it is hardly surprising that Muhammed faced considerable resistance at the beginning.

Muhammed and his small band of followers were eventually expelled from Mecca and found sanctuary in Medinah. According to the commentaries, it was not long after this migration to Medinah that verse 5.51 was revealed. Specifically, we are told that this verse came down around the time of the battle of Badr (3.123) or perhaps after the battle of Uhud (3.152-3).
In these early days, even though the Muslim community continued no more than perhaps a few hundred people and had already Mecca, the Meccans continued to challenge them militarily, and these two early battles, as well as others, were crucial events in the history of the early Islamic community.

The Meccans were a far more powerful force than the Muslims, and in addition, the Meccans had allies throughout Arabia. Given the small numbers of the Muslims, the Prophet and his fledging community faced the real possibility of utter annihilation should they lose any of these early conflicts.Within this highly charged environment some members of the Muslim community wanted to make individual alliances with other non-Muslim tribes in the region. Within the city of Medinah, there were Jewish tribes who constituted a powerful presence in the town and who were on good terms with Meccans, and to the north of the city there were also numerous Christian Arab tribes. Some Muslims thought it would be a good idea to make alliances with one or more of these groups as a way of preserving themselves should the Meccan armies’ ultimately triumph. The view might have been that a young community, in such dire straits, could not allow dissension in the ranks of the faithful as would be created by various individuals linking themselves with non-Islamic groups. So we can see that the translation of awliya as ‘friends’ is misleading and that it should be rendered perhaps as ‘protectors’ or ‘guardians’ in the strict military sense of these terms. The verse should be read as,

‘Do not take Christians and Jews as your protectors. They are protectors to one another.’

This is the message of the verse, and the appropriateness of this Interpretation is supported not only by the historical context of its revelation but also by the fact that nowhere does the Qur’an oppose simple kindness between peoples, as is clear from other Qur’anic verses. [5]

Moreover, the idea that Muslims are encouraged not to be friends with Christians and Jews is not in harmony with many verses of the Quran which orders Muslims not to discriminate against anyone,

“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do.” – Quran 5:8


“O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.” – Quran 49:13


“Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly. Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion – [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.” – Quran 60:8-9

We propose the following question to those who still cling onto the idea that Muslims are not allowed to befriend Christians and Jews, using 5:51 as evidence: why does the Quran allow for marriage between a Muslim man and Christian (or Jewish) woman? Read the verse below, (‘People of the Book’ – this refers to Christians and Jews),

“This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).” – Quran 5:5

In conclusion, when we examine the passage in its historical context, one sees that Q. 5:51 prohibits Muslims from making alliances with Christian and Jews who are at war with Muslims. Reading 60:1 gives more weight that 5:51 is only in reference to those Christians and Jews fighting Muslims. Moreover, Muslim and non-Muslim scholars also stated that the Arabic word ‘awliya’ should be translated as ‘allies’, ‘guardians’ and ‘patrons’, not ‘friends’ as some who have suggested.


[1] Religious Tolerance in World Religions [Copyright 2008 By Timpleton Foundation Press] – Ibrahim Kalin page 264
[2] The Message of The Quran translated and explained by Muhammad Asad Page 233
[3] The Holy Qur’an Arabic text With English Translation & Short Commentary By Malik Ghulam Farid page 250
[4] The Holy Quran Arabic Text with English Translation, Commentary and comprehensive Introduction [Year 2002 Edition] by Maulana Muhammad Ali page 264
[5] Jewish Thought: An Introduction [Copyright 2006] By Oliver Leaman Page 70 – 71

Debunking The Myth That The Qur’an Endorses Violence

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

Kaleef K. Karim

It is astonishing to see how Christian extremists, and Zionists love to cherry-pick verses out of the Quran in order to support their conclusion that Islam endorses violence against the innocent. Sadly, the ignorant, bigoted folk spew this further to the masses that Islam is a religion of violence. Let’s be clear – Muslims are never ordered to fight against the innocent. Neither the Quran nor the Hadith endorse violence against the innocent. However, as I have examined in many of verses in their historical context, the Quran does allow people to fight back in self-defence, in order to repel oppression, persecution and tyranny.

The following verses below are used by critics who espouse that Islam is a religion of violence. I have provided scholarly commentaries on the verses, in order to better understand the verses and clarify them through their historical context. Click on the links for more information.

1. Quran 2:191

2. Quran 2:216

3. Quran 2:224

4. Quran 3:56

5. Quran 3:151

5. Quran 3:167

6. Quran 4:74-77

7. Quran 4:89

8. Quran 4:95

9. Quran 4:104

10. Quran 5:33

11. Quran 8:12

12. Quran 8:39

13. Quran 8:59-60

14. Quran 9:5

15. Quran 9:29 [Part 1]

16. Quran 9:29 [Part 2]

17. Quran 9:30

18. Quran 9: 38-39

19. Quran 9:41–42

20. Quran 9:73

21. Quran 9:88

22. Quran 9:111

23. Quran 9:123

24. Quran 17:16

25. Quran 18:65-81

26. Quran 21:44

27. Quran 25:52

28. Quran 47:3-4

29. Quran 47:35

30. Quran 48:17

32. Quran 61:4

33. Quran 61:9

34. Quran 61:10-12

35. Quran 66:9


Examining Quran 9:29 – Does Islam sanction the killing of Christians and Jews?

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

Kaleef K. Karim

The answer is no! This verse (Q. 9:29) is by far the most problematic I have come across when reading the Quran. I say it’s ‘problematic’ because this verse is the only one that I know of which does not give context. When looking at any other verses in the Quran, reading the verses before and after have always happened to give an explanation. However, this passage (Q. 9:29) does not. Let’s read it below:

Quran 9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Islamophobes happen to always come across this verse, and show it to people who know little about Islam. They give the impression that Islam sanctions the killing of Jews and Christians at all times. It is important to always get info from the most authentic sources i.e., by reading and collecting information from Muslims, rather than Islamophobes, since their job is to bash Islam and Muslims. For example, would someone go to a Nazi to learn about Judaism – or would you do so to a better source such as a Jew who practices their religion on a daily basis? The answer would be obvious, is that you would learn from a Jewish person about Judaism. Upon commenting on this particular verse, one of the staunchest critics of Islam, Reverend E.M. Wherry, writes:

Vers. 29-128 refer to the events connected with the expedition to Tabuq, which occurred in Rajab of A.H. 9. They were not, however, all enunciated at one time, but partly before the expedition, partly on the march, and partly after the return. Vers. 29-35 may be referred to the time of arrival at Tabuq, when the Christian prince, John of Aylah, tendered his submission to Muhammad, paying tribute (Jazya). [1]

When reading this passage in its historical context, it is clear that it was sent down by God to Prophet Muhammad (p) to fight against the Byzantine (Roman) empire, who mobilised troops in order to attack the Muslims. In one of our authentic early Islamic sources, ‘Sahih Muslim’, it says:

He (Hadrat ‘Umar further) said: I had a companion from the Ansar and, we used to remain in the company of the Messenger (ﷺ) turn by turn. He remained there for a day while I remained there on the other day, and he brought me the news about the revelation and other (matter), and I brought him (the news) like this. And we discussed that the Ghassanids were shoeing the horses in order to attack us. Id y companion once attended (the Apostle). And then came to me at night and knocked at my door and called me, and I came out to him, and he said: A matter of great importance has happened. I said: What is that? Have the Ghassanids come? He said: No, but even more serious and more significant than that: the Prophet (ﷺ) has divorced his wives. [2]

From the above narration, there is clear evidence that the Muslims were informed of an impending invasion by the Ghassanids, who were part of the Byzantine Empire. Additionally, Ibn Sa’d in his book Kitab al-tabaqat al-kabir writes:

“They (narrators) saud: It (report) reached the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, that the Romans had concentrated large forces in Syria, that Heraclius had disbursed one year’s salary to his soldiers, and that tribes of Lakhm, Judham, ‘Amilah and Ghassan had joined hands with him. They had sent their vanguards to al-Balqa. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, summoned the people to march. He set out and informed them about the place which he intended, so that they could make necessary preparations. He sent (messengers) to Makkah and to the tribes of Arabia (asking them) to send help. This took place in the days of intense heat.” [3]

Again, we see clear evidence that it was the Byzantine (Roman) empire who started this war. What does one expect the Messenger Muhammad (p) to do? Sit back and do nothing while Muslim lives were going to get slaughtered? Of course, he had done the right thing, assembling the Muslim community to go out and fight against these aggressors. In another early Islamic source, Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan, written by the eminent 9th Century Imam, Aḥmad Ibn Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī, the author says:

“Tabuk make terms. When in the year 9 AH the Prophet marched to Tabuk in Syria for the invasion of those of the Greeks, Amilah, Lakhm, Judham and others whom he learnt had assembled against him, he met no resistance. So he spent a few days in Tabuk, whose inhabitants made terms with him agreeing to pay poll-tax.” [4]

So far, as we have read early Islamic sources, when one reads the passage (9:29) in its historical perspective, it is a fact that the Byzantines (Romans) were the ones who intended to wage war with the Muslims. Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri in his work of Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar) writes:

The invasion and the conquest of Makkah was considered a decisive one between the truth and the error. As a result of which, the Arabs had no more doubt in Muhammad’s mission. Thus we see that things went contrary to the pagans’ expectations. People started to embrace Islam, the religion of Allah in great numbers. This is manifested clearly in the chapter. The delegations, of this book. It can also be deduced out of the enormous number of people who shared in the Hajjatul-Wad⦣145; (Farewell Pilgrimage). All domestic troubles came to an end. Muslims, eventually felt at ease and started setting up the teachings of All Laws and intensifying the Call to Islam.


The Byzantine power, which was considered the greatest military force on earth at that time, showed an unjustifiable opposition towards Muslims. As we have already mentioned, their opposition started at killing the ambassador of the Messenger of Allah [pbuh], Al-Harith bin, Umair Al-Azdi, by Sharhabeel bin, Amr Al-Ghassani. The ambassador was then carrying a message from the Prophet [pbuh] to the ruler of Busra. We have also stated that the Prophet consequently dispatched a brigade under the command of Zaid bin Haritha, who had a fierce fight against the Byzantines at Mu’tah. Although Muslim forces could not have revenge on those haughty over proud tyrants, the confrontation itself had a great impression on the Arabs, all over Arabia.
Caesar, who could neither ignore the great benefit that Mu’tah Battle had brought to Muslims, nor could he disregard the Arab tribes’ expectations of independence, and their hopes of getting free from his influence and reign, nor he could ignore their alliance to the Muslims, realizing all that, Caesar was aware of the progressive danger threatening his borders, especially Ash-Sham-fronts which were neighbouring Arab lands. So he concluded that demolition of the Muslims power had grown an urgent necessity. This decision of his should, in his opinion, be achieved before the Muslims become too powerful to conquer, and raise troubles and unrest in the adjacent Arab territories.
To meet these exigencies, Caesar mustered a huge army of the Byzantines and pro-Roman Ghassanide tribes to launch a decisive bloody battle against the Muslims.


No sooner news about the Byzantine’s preparations for a decisive invasion against Muslims reached Madinah than fear spread among them. They started to envisage the Byzantine invasion in the least sound they could hear. This could be clearly worked out of what had happened to, Umar bin Al-Khattab one day.
The Prophet [pbuh] had taken an oath to stay off his wives for a month in the ninth year of Al-Hijra. Therefore, he deserted them and kept off in a private place. At the beginning, the Companions of the Messenger of Allah were puzzled and could not work out the reason for such behaviour. They thought the Prophet [pbuh] had divorced them and that was why he was grieved, disturbed and upset. In Umar’s version of the very story he says: “I used to have a Helper friend who often informed me about what happened if I weren’t present, and in return I always informed him of what had taken place during his absence. They both lived in the high part of Madinah. Both of them used to call at the Prophet alternatively during that time of suspense. Then one day I heard my friend, knock at the door saying: “Open up! Open up!” I asked wondering, “What’s the matter? Has the Ghassanide come?” “No it is more serious than that. The Messenger of Allah [pbuh] has deserted his wives.” [Sahih Al-Bukhari 2/730]
In another version, Umar said, “We talked about Ghassanide preparations to invade us. When it was his turn to convey the news to me, he went down and returned in the evening. He knocked at the door violently and said Is he sleeping?’ I was terrified but I went out to meet him. Something serious had taken place.’ He said. Has the Ghassaindes arrived?’ I Said ‘No,’ he said, it is greater and more serious. The Messenger of Allah [pbuh] has divorced his wives.’” [Sahih Al-Bukhari 1/334]
This state of too much alertness manifests clearly the seriousness of the situation that Muslims began to experience. The seriousness of the situation was confirmed to a large degree by the hypocrites’ behaviour, when news about the Byzantines’ preparations reached Madinah. The fact that the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] won all the battles he fought, and that no power on earth could make him terrified, and that he had always proved to be able to overcome all the obstacles that stood in his way – did not prevent the hypocrites, who concealed evil in their hearts, from expecting an affliction to fall upon the Muslims and Islam….


A magnified image of the prominent danger threatening the Muslims life was carried to them by the Nabateans who brought oil from Ash-Sham to Madinah. They carried news about Heraclius’ preparations and equipment of an enormous army counting over forty thousand fighters besides Lukham, Judham and other tribes allied to the Byzantines. They said that its vanguard had already reached Al-Balq. Thus was the grave situation standing in ambush for the Muslims. The general situation was aggravated seriously by other adverse factors of too much hot weather, drought and the rough and rugged distance they had to cover in case they decided to encounter the imminent danger.
The Messenger of Allah [pbuh] concept and estimation of the situation and its development was more precise and accurate than all others. He thought that if he tarried or dealt passively with the situation in such a way that might enable the Byzantines to paddle through the Islamic controlled provinces or to go as far as Madinah, this would, amid these circumstances, leave the most awful impression on Islam as well as on the Muslims’ military credibility.
The pre-Islamic beliefs and traditions (Al-Jahiliyah) which were at that time dying because of the strong decisive blow that they had already had at Hunain, could have had a way to come back to life once again in such an environment. The hypocrites who were conspiring against the Muslims so that they might stab them in the back whereas Byzantines would attack them from the front. If such a thing came to light and they succeeded in their evil attempts, the Prophet and his Companions’ efforts to spread Islam would collapse and their profits which were the consequences of successive and constant fights and invasions would be invalidated. The Messenger of Allah [pbuh] realised all that very well. So in spite of the hardships and drought that Muslims were suffering from the Prophet [pbuh] was determined that the Muslims should invade the Byzantines and fight a decisive battle at their own borders. He was determined not to tarry at all in order to thwart any Roman attempt to approach the land of Islam.
When the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] had made up his mind and took his final decision, he ordered his Companions to get ready for war and sent for the Makkans and the other Arab tribes asking for their assistance.
Contrary to his habit of concealing his real intention of the invasion by means of declaring a false one, he announced openly his intention of meeting the Byzantines and fighting them. He cleared the situation to his people so that they would get ready, and urged them to fight in the way of Allah. On this occasion a part of Surat Bara’a (Chapter 9 The Repentance) was sent down by Allah urging them to steadfastness and stamina.
On the other hand, the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] cherished them to pay charities and to spend the best of their fortunes in the way of Allah.
No sooner had the Muslims heard the voice of the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] calling them to fight the Byzantines than they rushed to comply with his orders. With great speed they started getting ready for war. Tribes and phratries from here and there began pouring in Madinah. Almost all the Muslims responded positively. Only those who had weakness at their hearts favoured to stay behind. They were only three people. Even the needy and the poor who could not afford a ride came to the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] asking for one so that they would be able to share in the fight against the Byzantines. But when he said:
“…I can find no mounts for you’ they turned back while their eyes overflowing with tears of grief that they could not find anything to spend (for Jihad).” [Al-Qur’an 9:92]
The Muslims raced to spend out money and to pay charities to provide this invasion. Uthman, for instance, who had already rigged two hundred, saddled camels to travel to Ash-Sham, presented them all with two hundred ounces (of gold) as charity. He also fetched a thousand dinars and cast them all into the lap of the Messenger of Allah[pbuh], who turned them over and said: “From this day on nothing will harm Uthman regardless of what he does.” [Jami’ At-Tirmidhi 2/211 (The virtues of ‘Uthman)] Again and again Uthman gave till his charity toped to nine hundred camels and a hundred horses, besides the money he paid.
Abdur Rahman bin Awf, on his side, paid two hundred silver ounces, whereas Abu Bakr paid the whole money he had and left nothing but Allah and His Messenger as a fortune for his family. Umar paid half his fortune. Abbas gifted a lot of money. Talhah, Sa’d bin Ubadah and Muhammad bin Maslamah, gave money for the welfare of the invasion. Asim bin Adi, on his turn, offered ninety camel-burdens of dates. People raced to pay little and much charities alike. One of them gave the only half bushel (or the only bushel) he owned. Women shared in this competition by giving the things they owned; such as musk, armlets, anklets, ear-rings and rings. No one abstained from spending out money, or was too mean to grant money or anything except the hypocrites:
“Those who defame such of the believers who give charity (in Allah’s cause) voluntarily, and those who could not find to give charity (in Allah’s cause) except what is available to them, so they mock at them (believers).” [Al-Qur’an 9:79]


Upon accomplishing the equipment of the army, the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] ordained that Muhammad bin Maslamah Al-Ansari should be appointed over Madinah. In another version Siba bin Arftah. To Ali bin Abu Talib he entrusted his family’s safety and affairs and ordered him to stay with them. This move made the hypocrites undervalue Ali, so he followed the Messenger of Allah pbuh] and caught up with him. But the Prophet made Ali turn back to Madinah after saying: “Would it not suffice you to be my successor in the way that Aaron (Harun) was to Moses’?” Then he proceeded saying: “But no Prophet succeeds me.”
On Thursday, the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] marched northwards to Tabuk. The army that numbered thirty thousand fighters was a great one, when compared with the previous armies of Islam. Muslims had never marched with such a great number before.
Despite all the gifts of wealth and mounts the army was not perfectly equipped. The shortage of provisions and mounts was so serious that eighteen men mounted one camel alternatively. As for provisions, members of the army at times had to eat the leaves of trees till their lips got swollen. Some others had to slaughter camels, though they were so dear, so that they could drink the water of their stomach; that is why that army was called “The army of distress”.
On their way to Tabuk, the army of Islam passed by Al-Hijr, which was the native land of Thamud who cut out (huge) rocks in the valley; that is “Al-Qura Valley” of today. They watered from its well but later the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] told them not to drink of that water, nor perform the ablution with it. The dough they made, he asked them to feed their camels with. He forbade them to eat anything whatsoever of it. As an alternative he told them to water from that well which Prophet Salih’s she-camel used to water from.
On the authority of Ibn ?Umar: “Upon passing by Al-Hijr the Prophet [pbuh] said:
“Do not enter the houses of those who erred themselves lest what had happened to them would afflict you, but if you had to do such a thing let it be associated with weeping.”
Then he raised his head up and accelerated his strides till he passed the valley out.” [Sahih Al-Bukhari 2/637]
Shortage of water and the army’s need to it made them complain to the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] about that. So he supplicated to Allah who sent a rainfall cloud. It rained and so all people drank and supplied themselves with their need of water.
When they drew near Tabuk, the Prophet said: “If Allah will, tomorrow you will arrive at Tabuk spring. You will not get there before daytime. So whoever reaches it should not touch its water; but wait till I come.” Muadh said: “When we reached the spring it used to gush forth some water. We found that two men had already preceded us to it. The Messenger of Allah [pbuh] asked them: Have you touched its water?’ They replied: ‘Yes’. He said what Allah inspired him to say, then he scooped up little water of that spring, thin stream which gathered together, he washed his face and hand with it and poured it back into it; consequently plenty of water spouted out of it so people watered. Muadh’, said the Messenger of Allah, if you were doomed to live long life you will see in here fields full of vegetation.’” [Sahih Muslim 2/246]
On the way to Tabuk, or as soon as they reached Tabuk, the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] said: Severe wind will blow tonight, so none of you should stand up. Whoever has a camel should tie it up.’ Later on when the strong wind blew, one of the men stood up and the wind carried him away to Tai’ Mountain. [ibid. Sahih Muslim 2/246]
All the way long the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] was intent on the performance of the combined prayer of noon and the afternoon; and so did he with sunset and evening prayers. His prayers for both were either pre-time or post-time prayers.


Arriving at Tabuk and camping there, the Muslim army was ready to face the enemy. There, the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] delivered an eloquent speech that included the most inclusive words. In that speech he urged the Muslims to seek the welfare of this world and the world to come. He warned and cherished them and gave them good tidings. By doing that he cherished those who were broken in spirits, and blocked up the gap of shortage and mess they were suffering from due to lack of supplies, food and other substances.
Upon learning of the Muslims’ march, the Byzantines and their allies were so terrified that none of them dared set out to fight. On the contrary they scattered inside their territory. It brought, in itself, a good credit to the Muslim forces. That had gained military reputation in the mid and remote lands of Arabian Peninsula. The great and serious political profits that the Muslim forces had obtained, were far better than the ones they could have acquired if the two armies had been engaged in military confrontation.
The Head of Ailah, Yahna bin Rawbah came to the Messenger of Allah [pbuh], made peace with him and paid him the tribute (Al-Jizya). Both of Jarba’ and Adhruh peoples paid him tribute, as well. So the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] gave each a guarantee letter, similar to Yahna’s, in which he says:
“In the Name of Allah the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
This is a guarantee of protection from Allah and Muhammad the Prophet, the Messenger of Allah to Yahna bin Rawbah and the people of Ailah, their ships, their caravans on land and sea shall have the custody of Allah and the Prophet Muhammad, he and whosoever are with him of Ash-Sham people and those of the sea. Whosoever contravenes this treaty, his wealth shall not save him, it shall be the fair prize of him that takes it. Now it should not be lawful to hinder the men from any springs which they have been in the habit of frequenting, nor from any journeys they desire to make, whether by sea or by land.”
The Messenger of Allah [pbuh] dispatched Khalid bin Al-Waleed at the head of four hundred and fifty horsemen to Ukaidir Dumat Al-Jandal and said to him: “You will see him hunting onyxes.” So when Khalid drew near his castle and was as far as an eye-sight range, he saw the onyxes coming out rubbing their horns against the castle gate. As it was a moony night. Khalid could see Ukaidir come out to hunt them, so he captured him, though he was surrounded by his men, and brought him back to the Messenger of Allah [pbuh], who spared his life and made peace with him for the payment of two thousand camels, eight hundred heads of cattle, four hundred armours and four hundred lances. He obliged him to recognize the duty of paying tribute and charged him with collecting it from Dumat, Tabuk, Ailah and Taima’.
The tribes, who used to ally the Byzantines, became quite certain that their dependence on their former masters came to an end. Therefore they turned into being pro-Muslims. The Islamic state had therefore enlarged its borders to an extent that it, touched the Byzantines’ and their agents’ borders. So we see that the Byzantine agents’ role was over.
The effect of this invasion is great as regards extending and confirming the Muslims’ influence and domination on the Arabian Peninsula. It was quite obvious to everybody that no power but Islam’s would live long among the Arabs. The remainders of Jahiliyin and hypocrites, who used to conspire steadily against the Muslims and who perpetually relied on Byzantine power when they were in need of support or help, these people lost their expectations and desires of ever reclaiming their ex-influence. Realizing that there was no way out and that they were to submit to the fait accompli, they gave up their attempts.


Many verses of Bara’a (Tauba) Chapter handling the event of Tabuk were revealed. Some verses were revealed before the march, while others after setting out for Tabuk, i.e. in the context of the battle. Some other verses were also revealed on the Prophet’s arrival in Madinah. All of which covered the incidents that featured this invasion: the immanent circumstances of the battle, exposure of the hypocrites, the prerogatives and special rank earmarked for the strivers in the cause of Allah acceptance of the repentance of the truthful believers who slackened and those who hung back, etc. [5]


From that historical point, Quran 9:29 was a war of self-defence. If the Muslims had not done nothing and sat back, the Muslim community as a whole would have been wiped off in Arabia, by the Byzantine (Romans) and other enemies.

More Muslim and non-Muslim scholarly commentaries on Quran 9:29

Dr. Mustafa As-Sibaa’ie, ‘The life of Prophet Muhammad highlights and lessons’ writes,

The Battle of Tabook
This is also known as Ghazwat al-Usrah (the campaign of hardship). It took place in Rajab 9 AH.
Tabook is a place between Wadi al-Qura, in the Hijaz, and Syria. The reason for this battle was that the Byzantines had gathered a huge number of troops in Syria, including the tribes of Lakhm, Judhaam, ‘Aamilah and Ghassan, who were Christianized Arabs. They did so because Heraclius intended to attack Madeenah and put an end to the state that was developing in the Arabian Peninsula, as the news of this state and its victories had filled Heraclius with fear and terror. So theProphet ordered the people to prepare for a campaign. That was a time of great and intense heat. The sincere Muslims responded willingly, but three of them remained behind, even though their faith was sincere. The Prophet commanded the rich to provide equipment for the army, and they brought a huge amount of money. Abu Bakr brought all of his wealth, which was forty thousand dirhams. Umar brought half of his wealth, and Uthmaan gave a large amount in charity that day equiped one-third of the army. The prophet prayed for him and said, “Nothing that Uthmaan does can harm him after this day.” A number of the poor Sahaabah came to him who had no animals to ride, and the Messenger said, “ I do not have anything that I can give you to ride.” They turned away with tears streaming dwn their faces because they did not have the means to prepare themselves to join the army. Eighty-odd of the hypocrites stayed behind, and a number of Bedouin gave invalied excuses, but the Prophet accepted them.
The Messenger of Allah set out with the people. There were thirty thousand warriors with him, and ten thousand horses. This was the greatest army that the Arabs had seen at that time. He marched until he reached Tabook, where he stayed for twenty days, during which he did not engage in any fighting. [6]

Scholar Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi

What was the genesis of this expedition? It is related that the Apostle got reports of Byzantine forces converging in the northern frontiers of Arabia with the intention of mounting an attack on the Muslims. Ibn Sa’ad and Waqidi had reported that the Apostle was informed by the Nabataeans that Heraclius was intending to come upon him and that his advance party had already reached Balqa. This was after storing on year’s provision for his army and drafting the pro-Byzantine tribes of Lakhm, Jodham, Amla and Ghassan under his banner. [7]

Maulana Muhammad Ali in his book, ‘The Holy Quran, Arabic Text with English Translation, Commentary and comprehensive Introduction’,

29a “The last word on the wars with the idolaters of Arabia having been said, this verse introduces the subject of fighting with the followers of the Book. Though the Jews had for a long time assisted the idolatrous Arabians in their struggle to uproot Islam, the great Christian power, the Roman Empire, had only just mobilized its forces for the subjection of the new religion, and the Tabuk expedition followed, which constitutes the subject-matter of a large portion of what follows in this chapter. As the object of this Christian power was simply the subjection of the Muslims, the words in which their final vanquishment by the Muslims is spoken of are different from those dealing with the final vanquishment of the idolatrous Arabians. The Qur’an neither required that the idolaters should be compelled to accept Islam, nor was it in any way its object to bring the Christians into subjection. On the other hand, the idolaters wanted to suppress Islam by the sword, and the Christians first moved themselves to bring Muslim Arabia under subjection. The fate of each was, therefore, according to what it intended for the Muslims. The word jizyah is derived from jaza, meaning he gave satisfaction, and means, according to LL, the tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of the Muslim Government whereby they ratify the compact that ensures them protection; or, according to AH, because it is a compensation for the protection which is guaranteed them, the non-Muslim subjects being free from military service.
The phrase ‘an yad-in has been explained variously. The word yad (lit., hand) stands for power or superiority, the use of the hand being the real source of the superiority of man over all other animals, and the apparent meaning of the phrase is in acknowledgement of your superiority in protecting their lives, etc. (AH). It may also be added that the permission to fight, as given to the Muslims, is subject to the condition that the enemy should first take up the sword, Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you (2:190). The Holy Prophet never overstepped this limit, nor did his followers. He fought against the Arabs when they took up the sword to destroy the Muslims, and he led an expedition against the Christians when the Roman Empire first mobilized its forces with the object of subjugating the Muslims. And so scrupulous was he that, when he found that the enemy had not yet taken the initiative, he did not attack the Roman Empire, but returned without fighting. Later on, however, the Roman Empire, like the Persians, helped the enemies of Islam and fomented trouble against the newly established Muslim Kingdom, as a result of which both these empires came into conflict with the Muslims and, notwithstanding the fact that both the Persians and the Romans were very powerful nations with unlimited resources and strong military organizations, and that they both tried at one and the same time to subjugate Islam, the result was what is predicted here in clear words — they were both reduced to a state of subjection by an insignificant nation like the Arabs.” [8]

Professor John Andrew Morrow

…..the early Muslims had to fend of all sorts of aggressive assaults of the unbelievers from the Quraysh and their allies among the bedioun and Jewish tribes, in such well-known Battles as those of Uhud, Al-Khandaq, Mu’tah and Tabuk[9]

Malik Ghulam Farid commentary on Quran 9:29

1175. The expression ‘An Yadin’ means (1) Willingly and in acknowledgement of the superior power of Muslims. (2) In ready money and not in the form of deferred payment.
* In this verse … is not translated. After the translation … will read as: ‘and Allah is most Forgivving, Merciful.’
(3) Considering it as a favour from Muslims; the practice ‘an meaning, on account of, and Yad denoting power and favour (Lane). The verse refers to those People of the Book who lived in Arabia. Like the idolaters they too had been actively hostile to Islam and had planned and plotted to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore, ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as loyal and peaceful subjects. The Jizyah was a tax which these non-Muslims had to pay as free subjects of the Muslim state in return for the protection they enjoined under it. It may be noted that as against Jizyah which was imposed on non-Muslims, a much heavier tax- Zakat was levied on the Muslims, and in addition to Zakat they had to perform military service from which non-Muslims were exempt. Thus the latter in a way fared better, for they had to pay a lighter tax and were also free from military duty. The word Saghirun expresses their subordinate political status; otherwise they enjoyed all social rights equally with Muslims. The idolaters of Arabia and Jews and Christians who lived in their neighbourhood were the principal adversaries of Islam. After having dealt with the believers relations with the People of the Book, especially with their religious beliefs and doctrines. [10]

Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazali states in his commentary on surah nine,

Muslims are therefore basically opposed to war and are never the ones to start it. By the imperative of their own religion, they are taught not to impose their beliefs on others by force. Their mission is to impart and communicate God’s message, leaving people free to decide whether to believe or reject it. Those who refuse to believe are free to pursue their lives in peace as long as they do not pose any obstacle or threat to Islam and the Muslims, who perceive their faith as the strongest and most vital binding relationship between God and humankind and that it is their responsibility to make others aware of it and provide them with the opportunity to understand and appreciate it. This is the basis of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims in Islamic society. God says elsewhere in the Qur’an: ‘Therefore if they (the unbelievers) do not trouble you and cease their hostility towards you and offer you peace, God gives you no authority over them’ [al-Nisa: 90]. Those who take up arms against a Muslim state or parts of it must be met by force, and if they are overcome, they should be disarmed. Once that is achieved, they are free to lead their own lives and practise their beliefs in peace and security under the protection of the Muslim authorities, in return for which they have to pay a levy.

This is the background against which prescription of the Jizyah, or exemption tax, came into being. It is not due from those who are neutral and have never taken arms against the Muslim state. The surah gives ample explanation for the reasons behind the establishment of this tax, for it stipulates who should pay it. They are those ‘who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not follow the true religion, until they pay the exemption tax unreservedly and with humility. [11]

In the book ‘Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia’, Alexander Mikaberidze, commenting on 9:29 writes,

The following verses are widely acknowledged to be the first to grant Muslims permission to bear arms:
Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged, and indeed, God has the power to help them: those who have been driven from their homes against all right for no other reason than their saying, ‘Our Provider is God!’ For, if God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques- in all of which God’s name is abundantly glorified- would surely have been destroyed. (22:39-40)
In these verses, the Koran asserts, if people were not allowed to defend themselves against aggressive wrongdoers, all the houses of worship- it is worthy of note here that Islam is not the only religion indicated here- would be destroyed and thus the word of God extinguished. Another verse states:
They ask you concerning fighting in the prohibited months. Answer them: ‘Fight therein is a serious offence. But to restrain men from following the cause of God, to deny God, to violate the sanctity of the sacred mosque, to expel its people from its environs is in the sight of God a greater wrong than fighting in the forbidden month. [For] discord and strife (fitna) are worse than killing.’ (2:217)
Wrongful expulsion of believers- Muslims and other monotheists- from their homes for no other reason than their avowal of belief in one God is one of the reasons- jus ad bellum- that justify recourse to fighting, according to these verses. Earlier revelations (Koran 42.40-43) had allowed only non-violent self-defence against wrongful conduct of the enemy. In another verse (2:291), the Koran acknowledges the enormity of fighting, and thus the potential taking of human life, but at the same time asserts the higher moral imperative of maintaining order and challenging wrongdoing. Therefore, when both just cause and righteous intention exist, war in self-defence becomes obligatory.
Fighting is prescribed for you, while you dislike it, but it is possible that you dislike. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But God knows and you know not. (2:216)
The Koran further asserts that it is the duty of Muslims to defend those who are oppressed and cry out to them for help (4.75), except against a people with whom the Muslims have concluded a treaty (8.72)
With regard to initiation of hostilities, the Koran has specific injunctions. Koran 2.190 reads, ‘Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression, for God loves not aggressors,’ which forbids Muslims from initiating hostilities. Recourse to armed combat must be in response to a prior act of aggression committed by the opposite side.
In the month of Ramadan in the third year of the Islamic calendar (624), full-fledged hostilities broke out between the Muslims and the pagan Meccans in what became known as the Battle of Badr. In this battle, the small army of Muslims decisively trounced a much larger, and more experienced, Meccan army. Two years later, the battle of Uhud was fought in which the Muslims suffered severe reverses, followed by the Battle of Khandaq in 627. Apart from these three major battles, a number of other minor campaigns were fought until the Prophet’s death in 632. Some of the most trenchant verses exhorting the Muslims to fight were revealed on the occasions of these military campaigns. One such verse is 9.5, which is one of what have been termed the ‘Sword verses’ (Ayat al-sayf), states,
And when the sacred months are over, slay the Polytheists wherever you find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place.
Another verse that is often conjoined to the previous verse runs:
Fight against those who- despite having been given revelation before- do not believe in God nor in the Last Day, and do not consider forbidden that which God and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of the truth, until they pay Jizyah with willing hand, having been subdued. (9.29).
The first of the sword verse verses (9.5), with its internal reference to the polytheists who may be fought after the end of the sacred months, would circumscribe its applicability to only the pagan Arabs of Muhammad’s time; this is how in fact manu medieval jurists, such as al-Shafii (d. 820), understood the verse. The second of the sword verses is seemingly at the People of the Book, that is, Jews and Christians, but again, a careful reading of the verse clearly indicates that it does not intent all the people of the Book but only those from among them who do not, in contravention of their own laws, believe in God and the Last Day and, in a hostile manner, impede the propagation of Islam.
The Koran, in another verse (2.193), makes clear, however, that should hostile behaviour on the part of the foes of Islam cease, then the reasons for engaging them in battle also lapses. This verse states: ‘And fight them on until there is no more chaos (fitna) and religion is only for Gd, but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.’ [12]

‘Debating the War of Ideas’, written by two Scholars, John Gallagher and Eric D. Patterson say that the Quran ‘forbids aggressive warfare’,

The Quran also developed a just war ideology. It forbids aggressive warfare and the pre-emptive strike, and makes it clear that self-defence was the only possible justification for hostilities. War was always a terrible evil, but it was sometimes necessary in order to preserve decent values, such as freedom of worship. Even here, the Quran did not abandon its pluralism: synagogues and churches as well as mosques should be protected. The Quran insists on the importance of mercy and forgiveness, even when during armed conflict. While engaged in hostilities, Muslims must fight steadfastly in order to bring the war to a speedy end, but the moment the enemy asked for peace, Muslims must lay down their arms. They must accept any truce, even if they suspect the enemy of double-dealing. And it is always better to sit DOWN AND solve a problem by rational, courteous discussion. True, retaliation was permitted as in the Jewish tradition- eye FOR EYE, tooth for tooth- but it must be strictly confined to those who had actually perpetrated the atrocities and ‘he who shall forgo it out of charity will atone better for some of his past sins.’ Later Islamic Law developed additional principles of humane warfare. It forbids war against a country where Muslims are permitted to practice their religion freely; it outlaws the killing of civilians, the deliberate destruction of property, and the use of fire in warfare.

Holy war was not one of the essential principles of Islam The word Jihad does not refer to armed conflict but to the ‘effort’ and ‘struggle’ required to implement God’s will in a flawed and violent world. Muslims are exhorted to strive in his endeavour on all fronts: intellectual, social, economic, spiritual, moral, and domestic. Sometimes they would have to fight, but this was not their chief duty. An oft-quoted tradition recalls Muhammad telling his companions after a battle: ‘We are returning from the lesser Jihad (the battle) and going to the Greater Jihad,’ the immeasurably more important and difficult struggle to reform their own society and they own hearts. It is true that Muslim rulers often engaged in wars for territorial aggrandizement and personal interest and dignified their military activities by calling it a Jihad, but, like other Kings and imperialists, they were motivated by political ambition rather than by religion. [13]

‘Out of darkness into light: Spiritual guidance in the Quran with reflections from Christian and Jewish sources’ written by Ann Holmes Redding, Jamal Rahman and Kathleen Schmitt Elias,

The Jihad that is so feared in Western society is known in Islam as the ‘lesser jihad’, and again, the fear is based on misinterpretation not only by non-Muslims but also by Muslim extremists who carry jihad lengths that were never sanctioned or condoned by the Quran. This lesser Jihad is about defending and protecting oneself and others when under attack- and only when under attack. “Fight in the way of God those who fight you,” says the Quran, “but begin not hostilities, for God loves not the aggressors” (2:190). This verse has also been interpreted to mean “do not transgress limits in the fight.” War is permitted only in self-defence, and the limits are well defined: no hostilities toward women, children, and the aged, no destruction of trees and crops, and no continuation of war once the enemy sues for peace. In the brutal world of the seventh century the terms of lesser Jihad were remarkably enlightened, but in any age there are those who ignore the words of scriptures and prophets, wreaking havoc on the earth by over-reaching their role as vice-regents of our compassionate and merciful God. Properly understood, the lesser Jihad of self-defence is entirely legitimate, but it will always be secondary to the greater Jihad of self-realization as a beautiful manifestation of the Divine. In Rumi’s metaphor, the Lion who breaks the enemy’s ranks is a minor hero compared with the lion who over-comes himself. [14]

In the book, ‘The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era’, Professor Micheline R. Ishay,

The notion of specified limits on the use of violence is also embedded in Islamic teaching, as the Quran echoes the biblical standard of “life for life, eye for eye, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wound for wound equal for equal.” Yet following the teaching of Jesus and Mohammad, one can still ‘remit retaliation by way of charity’ (Surah 5:45). While retaliation against an evil must be proportionate to that evil (Surah 42:40), there are instances in which retaliation by means of war, or Jihad (literally meaning ‘exertion’) is, as in the Christian notions of just war, legitimated. The Quran justifies wars for self-defence to protect Islamic communities against internal or external aggression by non-Islamic populations, and wars waged against those who ‘violate their oaths’ by breaking a treaty (Surah 9:12, 9:13, 42:40-43).
If God commands us to go to war, a better afterlife, exhorts the Quran, is promised to the true soldiers of faith: “And if ye are slain or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are fare better than all they could amass [in wealth]” (Surah 3:157). If some modern Islamic religious zealots, such as Osama Bin laden, have found in the concept of the holy war a justification for terrorist activities, they have overlooked the fact that the same Quran, drawing from the Hebrew Bible, urges a soldier of faith “to protect the life of non-combatants, aged ones, children and women, as well as the life of imprisoned soldiers.” Temperance, the Quran states, I also mandated: ”Fight in the name of God those who fight you; but exceed not the limit. For God loves not those who exceed the limit…. Fight till there is no persecution, and the judgement be God’s. But if they desist, let there be no hostilities save against the unjust.” One should not forget, after all, that Islamic juridical writings urging tolerance and moderation in war, such as the Abbou Hassan of Baghdad (1036), the Hedaya (1196), and the Vikayat printed in Spain (1280) were composed five hundred years before Grotius and the Christian humanists. Those views live on in the contemporary Islamic writings of the Lebanese Sobhi Mahmassani. [15]

All the above evidence refutes the assertion made by Islamophobes, that the Muslims fought the Jews and Christians (Byzantines/Romans) for no reason. According to bigoted Isamophobes, Muslims are somehow bloodthirsty animals, and just want war with everyone who is not Muslim, but as shown above, these claims are false and expose their deceitful intentions. In conclusion, the Quranic verse 9:29 commanded Muslims to fight only those that were involved in aggression against them, as shown by its historical context. Muslims only fought the Byzantines in self-defence, to save the themselves from oppression and extinction.



[1] A comprehensive commentary on the Quran By the Reverend E. M. Wherry volume 2 page 274
[2] Reference: Sahih Muslim 1479 e, 1475 b In-book reference : Book 18, Hadith 44. USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 9, Hadith 3511http://sunnah.com/muslim/18/44
[3] Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Translated by S. Moinul Haq (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2009) Vol.II, 203-204
[4] The origins of the Islamic State, being a translation from the Arabic accompanied with annotations Geographic and historic notes of the KITAB FUTUH AL-BULDAN of al-Imam Abu’l Abbas Ahmad Ibn Jabir Al Baladhuri, By Phillip Khurti Hitti, PHD, [1916], volume 1, page 92
[5] Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar) Memoirs of the Noble Prophet [pbuh] by Saifur Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri page 272- 280
[6] The life of Prophet Muhammad highlights and lessons by Dr. Mustafa As-Sibaa’ie page 116 – 117
[7] Muhammad Rasulullah The Apostle of Mercy By S. Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi, page 320
[8] The Holy Quran, Arabic Text with English Translation, Commentary and comprehensive Introduction by Maulana Muhammad Ali, [Year 2002 Edition], Page 404
[9] Islamic Images and Ideas: Essays on Sacred Symbolism, by Professor John Andrew Morrow, page 31
[10] The Holy Qur’an Arabic Text with English Translation & Short Commentary, Malik Ghulam, Farid Page 383 – 384
[11] A Thematic Commentary on the Qurʼan, by Scholar, Shaykh Muḥammad Ghazālī page 182 – 183
[12] Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia [Copyright 2011] by Alexander Mikaberidze page Volume 1, 929 – 930
[13] Debating the War of Ideas by John Gallagher, Eric D. Patterson page 57
[14] Out of darkness into Light: Spiritual guidance in the Quran with reflections from Christian and Jewish sources Ann Holmes Redding, Jamal Rahman, Kathleen Schmitt Elias PAGE 53
[15] The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era By Micheline R. Ishay page 45 – 47

Arabic Word Nikah and its Meaning

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

Kaleef K. Karim

In this article I will be referencing and quoting from numerous scholarly sources that will define the Arabic word ‘Nikah’ as meaning marriage, marriage contract, betrothal.

For the past several months I have seen critics, especially brainless Christian missionaries on Facebook and other places saying that the Quran has a vulgar word in it. They say the Arabic word ‘Nikah’ (according to them) means F-ck. Let’s be clear that the Arabic word ‘Nikah’ is not an offensive word. Whenever it used in the Quran or in the Hadith (authentic sayings of Prophet Muhammed p) it only means marriage, marriage contract and nothing more.

Definitions on the Arabic word ‘Nikah’

1. In the book ‘Introduction to the Holy Qur’an’, Abd Al-Rahman Doi says:

“Nikah: Nikah literally means conjunction or uniting. In the Islamic legal system, it implies a marriage contract in the presence of a minimum of two males.” [1]

2. Professor Ihsan Yilmaz

Nikah (ar, Tur) literally ‘conjunction’. Marriage
nikahnama (Ur) marriage contract.” [2]

3. In the book ‘Dictionary of Islam’, Patrick Hughes, Thomas Patrick Hughes

Nikah, A word which, in its literal sense signifies conjunction, but which in the language of the law implies the marriage contract. [Marriage.]” [3]

4. Encountering the World of Islam, Keith E. Swartley

nikah (nee-kah) – conjunction; legal marriage contract, or the social-religious rite which, according to Islamic law, validates the marriage.” [4]

5. Modern Muslim socities, Florian Pohl

There are two main terms used to refer to marriage in Islam: nikah and zawaj. These are Arabic words, and the roots of both are found in the Koran. Both are used to refer to marriage in Arabic-speaking countries. In most non-Arabic-speaking Muslim countries, the word nikah is the conventional term used to refer to the contract of marriage (aqd al-nikah).
In some countries the term also refers to the wedding ceremony, incorporating the contract. The difference between the two words is linguistic. Nikah incorporates the meaning of the act of physical union between spouses as well as the legal and social institution. While the root of the word zawaj denotes pairing. There are various terms for the wedding itself in Arabic-speaking countries….” [5]

6. Principles and Precedents of Moohummudan Law:

Nikah, as explained by Shakespear, is an Arabic term signifying marriage, or matrimony.” [6]

7. The Cambridge Companion to American Islam

“Typically, both mutual consent and evidence of the mahr are expressed in the marriage contract, also known as nikah, the Arabic term for marriage and the word generally used to refer to the marriage ceremony.” [7]

8. Marriage, Ronne Randall:

“The marriage ceremony itself is called the nikah, an Arabic word that refers to the relationship between a man and woman and the actual contract of marriage.“ [8]

9. Foundations in RE, Par Ina Taylor

Nikah (Ar. ‘marriage’): referring to the marriage contract in Islam, binding on the two parties, the bride and the groom. The marriage contract (nikah) becomes complete with the giving of mahr (Ar. ‘dowry’) to the bride, and the bride’s consent to the marriage in front of witnesses. Finally, when the marriage agreement is accepted and witnessed, those who are present recite al-Fatiha (Ar. ‘the Opening’), the first surah of the Quran. The ceremonies that follow or precede the marriage contract may vary often reflecting cultural and ethnic traditions of the marrying parties and their families.” [9]

10. Arabic-English Dictionary, The Hans Wehr Dictionary Of Modern Written Arabic

“Nakaha u I a (nikah) to marry (haa a woman), get married (haa with), to become related by marriage (. to s.o.), to give in marriage (haa . to s.o. a girl)
nikah marriage; marriage contract; matrimony, wedlock” [10]

11. An Arabic-English vocabulary for the use of English students of modern Egyptian Arabic, Donald Andreas Cameron

Nakaha, he married; consummated marriage.
Nikah, pl. ankiha, marriage
‘aqada en-nikah (the priest) tied the marriage knot, solemnized the marriage.” [11]

12. English-Arabic Dictionary: For the Use of Both Travellers and Students, Professor Francis Joseph Steingass

Marriage, Ziwaj; Zija-t; Nikah. – (demand in marriage).” [12]

13. Al-Mawrid A Modern Arabic-English Dictionary, Dr. Rohi Baalbaki

Marriage, matrimony, wedlock — نكاح, زواج Nikah[13]

14. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, Professor John L. Esposito

Nikah — Marriage ceremony [14]

We see from all these references that the Arabic word ‘Nikah’ only means marriage, marriage contract. It’s clear whatever critics have assumed on the word as being ‘offensive’, it has been refuted by Muslim and non-Muslim scholarly evidences.


[1] Introduction to the Holy Qur’An By Abd Al-Rahman Doi page 167
[2] Muslim Laws, Politics and Society in Modern Nation States: Dynamic Legal Pluralisms in England, Turkey and Pakistan By Professor Ihsan Yilmaz. Page XV [Glossary]
[3] Dictionary of Islam By Patrick Hughes, Thomas Patrick Hughes page 55
[4] Encountering the World of Islam edited by Keith E. Swartley page 519
[5] Modern Muslim Societies [Copyright 2011] by Florian Pohl page 38
[6] Principles and Precedents of Moohummudan Law: Being a Compilation of Primary Rules Relative to the Doctrine of Inheritance (including the Tenets of the Schia Sectaries), Contracts and Miscellaneous Subjects; and a Section of Legal Opinions Involving Those Points, Delivered in the Several Courts of Judicature Subordinate to the Precidency of Fort William; Together with Notes Illustrative and Explanatory, and Preliminary Remarks [Second edition, 1825] BY Sir William Hay Macnaghten, William Sloan page 479
[7] The Cambridge Companion to American Islam edited by Juliane Hammer, Omid Safi
[8] Marriage [Copyright 2010] By Ronne Randall page 20
[9] Foundations in RE – Islam Core Edition [Copyright 2001] Par Ina Taylor page 71 [Glossary]
[10] Arabic-English Dictionary The Hans Wehr Dictionary Of Modern Written Arabic page 997
[11] An Arabic-English vocabulary for the use of English students of modern Egyptian Arabic By Donald Andreas Cameron page 292
[12] English-Arabic Dictionary: For the Use of Both Travellers and Students (1882) by Professor Francis Joseph Steingass page 235
[13] Al-Mawrid A Modern Arabic-English Dictionary by Dr. Rohi Baalbaki page 1190
[14] The Oxford Dictionary of Islam [Copyright 2003] by Professor John L. Esposito page 234