Were Muslim conquests meant to forcefully convert people to Islam?
by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons)
This has to be the most typical, worn-out contentions put forward
against Islam by its detractors (most often by Christian evangelists):
that Islam spread across the world through the sword. This pedestrian
notion contends that Muslim conquests assaulted innocent neighbouring
countries and forced their denizens to accept Islam, pay a tax poll or
die. Often the tax poll would not even be mentioned in the argument.
They would have their audience believe Muslim military expeditions were
sweeping through the world, sword in hand and giving the ultimatum,
Islam or death. Nothing could be further than the truth. Even if one
were to accept the basic assumption that there were military operations
under the supervision of Muslim generals that had its victims compelled
into Islam or die upon refusal that cannot in any way be used as an
indictment against Islam for the simple fact that excercising compulsion
on people to enter into Islam is antithesis to its very roots. The
Qur’an clearly sets forth the criterion unambiguously that is to be
observed by its adherents:
لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي ٱلدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ ٱلرُّشْدُ
مِنَ ٱلْغَيِّ فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِٱلطَّاغُوتِ وَيْؤْمِن بِٱللَّهِ فَقَدِ
ٱسْتَمْسَكَ بِٱلْعُرْوَةِ ٱلْوُثْقَىٰ لاَ ٱنفِصَامَ لَهَا وَٱللَّهُ
سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ
“Let there be no compulsion in religion for truth stands out clear
from error. Whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has taken hold of
the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks and Allah hears and
knows all things.” (Surah al-Baqarah, chapter 2, verse 256)
The above verse was revealed in Medinah regarding the Ansar who were
trying to force their children to accept Islam which means that the
disbelievers were free to accept Islam or deny it even when the Muslims
were in control of the state.
رُّبَمَا يَوَدُّ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ لَوْ كَانُواْ مُسْلِمِينَ
ذَرْهُمْ يَأْكُلُواْ وَيَتَمَتَّعُواْ وَيُلْهِهِمُ ٱلأَمَلُ فَسَوْفَ يَعْلَمُونَ
“And it will come to pass that those who are [now] bent on denying
this truth will wish that they had surrendered themselves to God [in
their lifetime]. Leave them alone;
let them eat and enjoy themselves the while the hope [of vain delights]
beguiles them: for in time they will come to know [the truth].” (Surah
al-Hijr, Chapter 15, verses 2-3)
The above two verses describe those who consciously reject Islam and
the response that the believers ought to display when faced with the
rejecters. The command is to simply leave them alone and let them eat
and enjoy their life. If they were to be killed this would be an
instance of such a place where the Qur’an would have ordered such a
thing.
وَلَوْ شَآءَ رَبُّكَ لآمَنَ مَن فِي ٱلأَرْضِ كُلُّهُمْ جَمِيعاً أَفَأَنتَ تُكْرِهُ ٱلنَّاسَ حَتَّىٰ يَكُونُواْ مُؤْمِنِينَ
“Had your Lord willed, all those on earth would have believed
altogether. Would you, then, compel people, so that they become
believers?” (Surah Yunus, Chapter 10, verse 99)
The above verse is as clear as crystal as it rhetorically forbids compelling those who reject to accept belief.
وَقُلِ ٱلْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ فَمَن شَآءَ فَلْيُؤْمِن
وَمَن شَآءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ إِنَّا أَعْتَدْنَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ نَاراً
أَحَاطَ بِهِمْ سُرَادِقُهَا وَإِن يَسْتَغِيثُواْ يُغَاثُواْ بِمَآءٍ
كَٱلْمُهْلِ يَشْوِي ٱلْوجُوهَ بِئْسَ ٱلشَّرَابُ وَسَآءَتْ مُرْتَفَقاً
“And say: “The truth [has now come] from your Sustainer: let, then,
him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it.”
Verily, for all who sin against themselves [by rejecting Our truth] We have readied a fire whose billowing folds will encompass them from all sides; and if they beg for water, they will be given water [hot] like molten lead, which will scald their faces: how dreadful a drink, and how evil a place to rest!” (Surah al-Kahf, Chapter 18, verse 29)
Verily, for all who sin against themselves [by rejecting Our truth] We have readied a fire whose billowing folds will encompass them from all sides; and if they beg for water, they will be given water [hot] like molten lead, which will scald their faces: how dreadful a drink, and how evil a place to rest!” (Surah al-Kahf, Chapter 18, verse 29)
The above verse unequivocally shows like all the other aforementioned
verses that there is no temporal duty for a Muslim to force someone to
convert to Islam. It is in fact against the clear decree of letting them
believe as they wish.
There are so many other such verses that ensure the freedom of belief
for those who encounter Islam and the Muslims. They can never be forced
to accept Islam.
We should however, recognise that there were indeed Muslim conquests
that swept throughout the world. The battles and wars that were waged to
consolidate power and sovereignty was commonplace in the days of old.
It should be strictly noted that most if not all of the expansionist
efforts of Muslim powers were not aimed at converting its conquered
denizens by force.
Answering the question ‘Was Islam spread by the sword?’ Cambridge
based Islamic scholar and theologian T. J. Winter or now known as Sheikh
Dr. Abdul Hakim Murad and John A. Williams of College of William and
Mary write:
“In general, no. The laws of Muslim warfare forbid any forced
conversions, and regard them as invalid if they occur. The political
sway of Muslim rulers has sometimes been achieves through warfare, but
this must be distinguished clearly from the spiritual expansion of the
Islamic religion. There has never been a large-scale Muslim
‘inquisition’ or a Muslim ‘crusade’ which set out to massacre
unbelievers or convert them by force, except against Arab idolators when
they continually attacked the Muslims. The Qur’an insists that ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ (2:256), and Had your Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Shall you then force people to become believers? (10:99)” [1]
One is reminded of the event of the opening of Mecca where the
Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. together with 10 000 of his followers marched
unto Mecca and conquered it. Those who were vanquished were the Arab
idolaters who had persecuted the Prophet s.a.w. personally and his
companions for more than twenty years including a woman called Hind who
killed the prophet’s beloved uncle, Hamzah in the battle of Uhud after
which she tore open his body and ate a part of his liver in retribution
for the death of her father in the previous battle of Badr. Did the
Prophet s.a.w. exact vengeance upon these evil disbelievers? No, he did
not. The Prophet s.a.w. showed great magnanimity and forgave the Arab
idolaters. Oxford based scholar and theologian Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Afifi
al-Akiti recalling the event writes, “there was a general amnesty
[wa-mannun ‘alayhi bi takhliyati sabilihi or naha ‘an safki d-dima’] for
the Jahili Arabs there.” [2]
The Muslim armies spread around the world bringing with them the
assurance of tolerance and justice in the face of oppression and
persecution of minorities in Christian and other non-Muslim controlled
lands as Winter and Williams write:
“The purpose of Muslim rule is not to impose Islam, but to bring
about freedom of worship for Muslims and for others within the
established framework. While Islamic tradition recognizes the advent of
over 124, 000 religious prophets inspired by God over the ages, the
Qur’an recognizes the particular truth of the original revelations given
by God to the Jews and Christians: Those who believe [in
Islam], and those who are the Jews, and Sabeans and Christians – whoever
believes in God and the Last Day, and does right – no fear shall come
upon them, neither shall they grieve. (5:69)
Hence Islam’s theology of war entails a self-sacrificial effort
against intolerance and oppression; Muslims see it as a form of
‘liberation theology’. The early Muslims liberated the Near East, and
brought religious toleration to many Jewish and also sectarian Christian
minorities which had formerly been the victims of bitter persecution
either in the Byzantine Empire or the Persian dominions. Later on,
history was to witness the slaughter by the Crusaders of thousands of
Muslims and Jews when they captured Jerusalem in 1099, which contrasts
sharply with Saladin’s recapture of the city in 1187 and the tolerance
he displayed towards the Christian population, as well as his permission
allowing the Jews to return.
The lack of connection between islam’s political and spiritual growth
may again be highlighted in another way. In many countries – including
Indonesia, which is the most populous of all Muslim states – Muslim
political authority was established only after the population had
embraced Islam at the hands of traders and preachers, and not as a
sequel to military conquest. A further comparison could be made by
recalling the intolerance and persecution of the Jews and Muslims in
Catholic Spain with the tolerance Jews and Christians experienced under
eight centuries of Muslim rule in Andalusia.” [3]
Had it not been for the necessary military intervention of Muslim
powers Jewish and sectarian Christian minorities would have been
expunged from the face of the earth through systematic oppression and
persecution.
The Jews of Babylon were saved from annihilation by the Muslims as a Jewish website readily recognises:
“The Jews of Babylon The oldest and most stable of Jewish communities was saved from the Christians by Muslims sweeping through the Middle East.” [4]
Scholar Madeline Pelner Cosman and Associate Professor of History Linda G. Jones write:
“The Muslim conquests of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and North Africa
saved the Jews from probable religious, if not physical, extinction.” [5]
The conquered minority communities such as the Jews were grateful
towards Muslim conquerors for uprooting their Christian masters under
whom they suffered immeasurable persecution and intolerance.
Contemporary Jewish scholar Dr. Zion Zohar who is professor of Religious
Studies at Florida International University writes:
“After a time, the government legitimized forced baptisms, creating
the first cases of “anusim,” namely, Jews who were forced to profess
Catholicism publicly while practicing Judaism in secret. Thus, when
Muslims crossed the Straits of Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and
invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators from
Christian persecution.” [6]
An expert on the historical encounters between Muslims and Jews in
Spain contemporary Jewish scholar Raymond Schiendlin who is professor of
Medieval Hebrew Literature at The Jewish Theological Seminary writes:
“One of the Islamic regions that was flourishing just as Iraq was
entering its decline was Spain, which the Muslims had conquered in the
eighth century. This conquest saved the tiny Jewish community from a
regime that had treated them with particular severity (see chapter 3).
Under the benevolent rule of Islam, the Jews of the territory prospered
along with the country as a whole, which quickly freed itself from the
control of the empire…The economic success and the growing sense of a
distinctive regional identity and pride benefited the Jews as well, some
of whom became wealthy through the manufacture of textiles and through
trade.” [7]
The Muslim liberators clearly gave the Jewish communities liberty and
a new lease on life as Professor Schiendlin further writes :
“Most of the Jews in the world were now inhabitants of a single
Islamic empire stretching from the Indus River in the east to the
Atlantic Ocean in the west, including Spain. This development brought
the Jews of Palestine, Egypt, and Spain nearly instant relief from the
persecutions, harassment, and humiliation that they endured under
hostile Christian rule. It also brought them, for the first time since
the beginning of the Diaspora, into a single cultural, economic, and
political system. Both these new conditions would enable them to
flourish and to create the most successful Jewish Diaspora community of
premodern times.” [8]
He also recognises a fact that Muslims have long claimed:
“The Arabs did not embark on their conquest with the intention of converting the world to Islam.” [9]
If the Muslim military expeditions failed to liberate the Jews their
heritage would have become nothing but a passing footnote in history.
The Muslims in fact, helped save the Hebrew language from complete
extinction by exposing the Jewish community to the Muslims’ own language
namely, Arabic. Thus Norman Roth who is professor of Jewish History at
Wisconsin University writes:
“We have already seen that the knowledge of the Arabic language,
which the Jews of Muslim Spain (mostly immigrants from Iraq, Iran and
other Muslim lands) brought with them as their native tongue, played a
crucial role in the cultural development of the Jews and their relations
with Muslims. Moses Ibn Ezra(h), for example, observed that when the
Muslims conquered the Iberian peninsula from the Goths, who had
prevailed over the Romans some 300 years before, the Jews “after a time”
learned their language (Arabic) and investigated Arabic grammar, which
aided the Jews in understanding the Hebrew language and grammar. This
would seem to indicate that the Jews who remained in Spain from the
Visigothic era, who obviously had not known Arabic, were taught Arabic
by the Muslims even prior to the massive immigration of Arabic-speaking
Jews into Spain.
In any case, what he says about the importance of Arabic in aiding in
the scientific investigation of the Hebrew language and a creation of a
correct and accurate Hebrew grammar by Spanish Jews is absolutely
correct. I have already dealt with this elsewhere at length, and shown
that the “renaissance” of the Hebrew language which thus took place was
connected with the ‘Arabiyya concept (claims of the “perfection” and superiority of the Arabic language).
….
In the amazing advances that were made in uncovering the foundations
of Hebrew grammar and lexicography, Arabic as a cognate language came to
play an increasingly important role. Indeed, almost all of the works
written on Hebrew language in Muslim Spain were written in Judeo-Arabic
(Arabic in Hebrew letters). More than that, numerous obscure Hebrew
words were explained, more often than not correctly, on the basis of an
Arabic cognate.” [10]
What we learn from the above is that the revival of the Hebrew
language is directly credited to the expanding empire of the Muslims
which gave sufficient exposure of the Arabic language to the Jews that
came under the fold of Muslim governance. If this historical episode did
not take place in Islamic Spain and elsewhere much of the important
Qumran discovery in 1946 would have yielded little sense as Hebrew would
probably have become extinct as a language.
Popular author Jamie Frater (not to be confused with British criminal
Jamie Frater) who is a non-Muslim observer describes the idea that
Islam was spread by the sword as a myth. In fact, he nicely captures the
reality of things in the following:
MYTH
Islam was spread by the sword.
BULLSHIT! Right? Maybe not. Historian De Lacy O’Leary states,
“History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims
sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword
upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that
historians have ever repeated.” There is no record in history that shows
people being forced by sword point to convert to convert to Islam. When
Islam spread through centuries, people would set up private churches
and synagogues for the non-Muslims they were governing, and because of
the good treatment they had received, many non-Muslims would convert. If
one considers the small number of Muslims who initially spread Islam to
the West, all the way from Spain and Morocco and east from India and
China, one would realize that such a small group of people could not
force others to be members of a religion against their will. It is also
interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large
portions of the Islamic empire, instead of destroying the religion, the
adopted it! [11]
Let us now turn our attention to this Jizyah business. What exactly is Jizyah? Jizyah
in brief is a specific type of payment tolling non-Muslims residing in
Muslim governed states, hence it is often called a ‘poll tax’. Why is
there a special type of taxation upon non-Muslim citizens of a Muslim
state? Is this discrimination? The candid answer to that is yes. That is
indeed discrimination. Yet it is discrimination of a positive sort.
That is because their Muslim counterpart is not exactly free of any kind
of taxation. Rather, the Muslim resident has to pay rather more in what
is known as zakah which is divided into zakah al-fitr and zakah mal. Those are the two types of payments incumbent upon a Muslim citizen. Upon the fulfillment of the Jizyah obligation
the life of the preservation of the life of the non-Muslim is the
responsibility of all able bodied Muslims in the land. The non-Muslims
themselves are exempted from military service.
What is the amount of Jizyah that a non-Muslim citizen would ordinarily have to pay? The classic manual of Islamic jurisprudence Reliance of the Traveller states the following:
“The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of
gold) per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree
upon.
It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.” [12]
The above shows that the non-Muslim citizen is obliged to pay a
rather meager amount per year which is more than reasonable compared to
taxes that one would normally have to pay in say the United States of
America. The amount can be increased but only upon the agreement of both
parties! In addition, it is to be collected with politeness and
leniency without coercion. What is even more astounding is that women
and children are exempted as opposed to modern Christian secular laws
that demand taxation of babies (their food and other services) and
women.
The second caliph of Islam ‘Umar r.a. the great companion of the Prophet s.a.w. said:
أوصي الخليفة من بذمة الله وذمة رسولو (ص) : أن يوفى لهم بعهدهم, وأن يقاتل من ورائهم, وأن لا يكلفوا فوق طاقتهم.
“I advice my successor to fulfill the contract of the non-Muslim
citizens who are under the protection of Allah and His Messenger s.a.w. I
enjoin them to fight for them if the need arises and not to burden them
with more than they can bear.” [13]
The above substantiates Reliance of the Traveller in showing
leniency to non-Muslim citizens and to not burden them with things that
they cannot bear. In also shows that the Muslims are obliged to defend
them should the threat of war or the like arise. The non-Muslims are not
themselves commanded to defend the land. The Muslims carry that
specific responsibility.
Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri cites another pertinent example:
During his journey to Syria, ‘Umar saw that the tax officials were
making the non-Muslim citizens stand out in the sun as their taxes were
collected. Upon seeing this, he said:
دعوهم, لا تكلفوهم ما لا يطيقون, فإني سمعت رسول الله (ص)
يقول : لاتعذبوا الناس, فإن الذين يعذبون الناس في الدنيا يعذبهم الله يوم
القيامة.
“Spare them from this and do not burden them with more than they can
bear. Indeed, I heard the Messenger of God say, “Do not torture people,
for those who torture people in this life will be tortured by God on the
day of Resurrection.” [14]
A former slave of ‘Umar r.a. who was freed by him named Aslam stated:
أن عمر كتب إلى أمراء الأجناد : أن لا يضربوا الجزية على النساء,ولا على الصبيان
“’Umar r.a. wrote a letter to the military commanders stating that
they should not impose tax on non-Muslim women and children.” [15]
The above shows that women are children are exempted from the Jizyah as stated in Reliance of the Traveller..
فإن عمر أتي بمال كثير, قال أبو عبيد : وأحسبه من الجزية.
فقال: إني لأظنكم قد أهاكتم الناس,قالوا : لا,واالله,ما أخذنا إلا عفوا
صفوا. قال : بلا سوط ولا نوط ؟ قالوا : نعم. قال : الحمدلله الذي لم يجعل
ذلك على يدي ولا في سلطاني
“A large amount of wealth was brought to ‘Umar, and Abu ‘Ubayd said,
“I believe it was money collected from tax”. ‘Umar said, “For certain,
you have destroyed the people!” They [the tax collectors] said, “No, by
God! We have only taken with tenderness and ease”. ‘Umar inquired, “Was
it acquired without recourse to a whip or coercion?” They replied,
“Yes”. He said, “All praise is due to God, Who did not put that on my
hands or during my rule”. [16]
The above narration shows that coercing non-Muslim subjects to part with their wealth through Jizyah is intolerable and unacceptable in the eyes of Islam.
إن أمير المؤمنين عمر مربشيخ من أهل الذمة يسأل على أبواب
الناس, فقال : ما أنصفناك أن كنا أخذنا منك الجزية في شبيبتك, ثم ضيعناك
في كبرك. فال : ثم أجرى عليه من بيت المال ما يصلحه
“The Commander of the Faithful, ‘Umar, passed by an elderly man
amongst the non-Muslim citizens who was begging at people’s doors. ‘Umar
said to him, “We have not been fair to you if we have taken the tax
from you when you were younger but left you in helplessness in your old
age”. After that, ‘Umar issued instructions for the man to receive
enough money from the public treasury that would take care of his
needs’. [17]
The above informs us of a well-known incident involving an
underprivileged, poor Jewish man who was begging for money so as to pay
the Jizyah. He was unaware of the fact that his situation
exempted him from any payment and in fact obligated the state to look
after him which is why he was given money from the treasury and taken
care of afterwards. This is clear evidence that the elderly and the
unfortunate indigent is not to be taxed, but is rather to be looked
after. This also completely demolishes the nonsensical allegation that
Islam is anti-semitic or anti-Jew. An astute observer might ask, “How do
you know the story related above is of a Jewish indigent?” That is
because the above is a concise report of an incident that is elaborated
with more details in Abu Yusuf’s Kitab al-Kharaj whereby the
man is specifically identified as a Jew. For the sake of brevity we will
cite the relevant part where his Jewish heritage is identified:
و قال: من أي أهل الكتاب أنت؟ فقال: يهودي
“And he(‘Umar) said, “From which group amongst the People of the Book do you belong?” The man replied, “I am a Jew”.” [18]
Ensuring the rights of the non-Muslim subject is protected Jundub bin Abdillah r.a. narrates that the Prophet s.a.w. said:
من يخفر ذمتى كنت خصمه ومن خاصمته خصمته
“Whoever disrespects the protection I have granted to a non-Muslim, I
will be his enemy, and one whose enemy I become, I will defeat him.” [19]
The Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. is also reported to have said:
ألا من ظلم معاهدا أو انتقصه٬ أو كلفه فوق طاقته٬ أو أخذ منه شيئا بغير طيب نفس٬ فأنا حجيجه يوم القيامة
“Whoever oppresses a non-Muslim subject or puts a burden on him
beyond his capacity or forcibly takes away anything from him shall find
me to be their advocate on the day of Resurrection (against the
oppressing Muslim).” [20]
Writing on the treatment of non-Muslim subjects under an Islamic
government and citing a similar hadith to the above Winter and Williams
write:
“Jewish and Christian citizens of an Islamic state have the status known as dhimma (‘protection’). The Prophet s.a.w. said, ‘Whoever oppresses any Jew or Christian enjoying the dhimma status, shall have me as his adversary.’ A dhimma citizen is exempted from the zakat
tax payable by all Muslim citizens, and from conscription (although
jurists frequently hold that non-Muslims are entitled to volunteer to
fight for their country). Dhimma citizens also enjoy the right
to establish their own law-courts where questions of personal law such
as marriage, divorce and inheritance are adjudicated by a judge of their
own religion, in accordance with their own values. In exchange for the
extension of the protection primarily to life and property, dhimma citizens pay a tax known as jizya which may be roughly equivalent to the zakat,
a tax paid only by Muslims. Failure to provide this prime service and
security renders them non-liable to the payment of this due. Indeed,
cases are known of Muslim leaders returning the jizya to their non-Muslim subjects in cases of their inability to extend this protection.” [21]
From Reliance of the Traveller(‘Umdat al-Salik), the narrations cited above and Winter and William one can conclude the following:
- Jizyah is specifically for non-Muslim subjects who are able to pay it.
- Women, children and the poor are automatically exempted from Jizyah.
- Muslims are obliged to sacrifice their lives for the protection of non-Muslims pursuant to the proper observance and fulfillment of the Jizyah system.
- The Jizyah is to be tolled or exacted in a kind, lenient, fair and polite manner without involving torture of any kind.
- Failure to properly observe the correct etiquette of dealing with non-Muslim subjects incurs the wrath of the Prophet s.a.w. turning him into the non-Muslim’s advocate against the Muslim.
- Complete freedom of religion is afforded to non-Muslim subjects to the extent that they are granted the opportunity of judicial autonomy for their own community.
A proper understanding of the Jizyah system cannot in any
way stimulate a complaint from thinking non-Muslims. They should as a
matter of fact, heartily embrace what is clearly a magnanimous treatment
of non-Muslim subjects enshrined in the Islamic constitution. Muslims
are not permitted to wage war willy-nilly and treat life in a trivial
manner. Life including that of a disbeliever is sacred. Upon citing over
40 narrations of the sacredness of life the erudite Mufti Taqi Usmani
writes:
“Many of the above mentioned forty Ahadith have condemned and
pronounced warnings against taking the life of not only a Muslim, rather
they have condemned unjustly taking the life of any human being,
whether Muslim or non-Muslim.” [22]
References:
[1] Winter, T. J., & Williams, J. A. (2002).
Understanding Islam and the Muslims: The Muslim Family Islam and World
Peace. Louisville, Kentucky: Fons Vitae. P. 82
[2] Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti (2005). Defending the
Transgressed by Censuring the Reckless Against the Killing of Civilians.
United Kingdom: Aqsa Press. p. 31
[3] Winter, T. J., & Williams, J. A. Op. Cit.
[4] Anon. History of Judaism (Crash Course). Retrieved from http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/Jewish_History/
[5] Cosman, P. C., & Jones, L. G. (2007). Handbook to Life in the Medieval World. New York: Infobase Publishing. p. 91
[6] Zohar, Z. (2005). A Global Perspective on
Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewry: An Introductory Essay. In Zion Zohar (ed.),
Sephardic and Mizhary Jewry from the Golden Age of Spain to Modern
Times. New York: New York University Press. p. 9
[7] Scheindlin, R. P. (2000). A Short History of the
Jewish People: From Legendary Times to Modern Statehood. New York.
Oxford University Press. pp. 82-83
[8] Ibid. p. 73
[9] Ibid.
[10] Roth, N. (1994). Jews, Visigoths & Muslims
in Medieval Spain: Cooperation and Conflict. Leiden, The Netherlands: E.
J. Brill. pp. 171-172
[11] Frater, J. (2011). I Call Bullshit: Debunking the Most Common repeated Myths. Berkeley, California: Ulysses Press. p. 246
[12] Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri (1994). Reliance of
the Traveller (Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Trans.). Beltsville, Maryland: Amana
Publications. (Original work published 1800). p. 608
[13] Sahih Bukhari as cited in Muhammad
Tahir-ul-Qadri (2010). Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings. London:
Minhaj-ul-Quran International. p. 148; Muhammad Taqi Usmani (2010). The
Sanctity of Human Life in the Qur’an and Sunnah (Shakir Jakhura,
Trans.). Karachi, Pakistan: Maktaba Ma’riful Quran. p. 32
[14] Tahir-ul-Qadri Ibid. p. 149
[15] Ibid. p. 148
[16] Ibid. p. 149
[17] Ibid. p. 150
[18] Ibid. p. 151
[19] Muhammad Taqi Usmani. Op. Cit. p. 32
[20] Sunan Abi Dawud as cited in Kaleem-Ullah Khan
(2003). Islam: The Source of Universal Peace. New Delhi, India: Goodword
Books. p. 123
[21] Winter, T. J., & William, J. A. Op. Cit. p. 83
[22] Muhammad Taqi Usmani Op. Cit. p. 31
and
thus it could be read both ways. But because the other recital has no proof of
it's origin from the Prophet (SAW), none of the recitors adopted it.