We all grew up amidst the War on Terror. The world faced a monster – named Islamic fundamentalism. It reared up it’s head in various conflicts across the world – conflicts between radicals and modern states (like in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Tajikistan, Algeria, and other countries), conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims (like in Kashmir, Chechnya, or Palestine) or sectarian conflicts (between Sunnis and Shias, but also between Wahabis and Sufis, and other sects). The barbarism seen in such conflicts like the 9/11 attacks, the 26/11 attacks, the genocide of Yazidis, and brutal terror attacks every year deeply shocked humanity’s conscience. Many leading intellectuals thus came to the conclusion that, “Islam is the greatest force of evil in the world”, as the world-famous biologist Richard Dawkins is renowned to have said.

At first glance, this infact appears to be true. No other religion has generated so many terrorists working in it’s name (they may have generated ethnic or ideological terrorists like LTTE, or the Nazis, or Communists). Yes, there have been Hindu, Sikh, or Christian terrorists – but their popularity and impact have been far less. On the other hand, the wars associated with Islamic fundamentalism, as well as their terror attacks and repression unleashed by states like Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and the Iranian Mullah regime, have led to several hundred thousand, if not million deaths. No one can deny that there is something wrong in the way some Muslims have understood their religion. So where does this problem spring from?

The Root Cause

Unlike what we often assume, 90% of the casualties of Islamic terrorists have been fellow Muslims. Why is that? It is because Islamists (particularly Salafi-jihadists but also traditionalists like Muslim Brotherhood) pursue a revolutionary agenda to overthrow all the current governments in the Muslim world. Thus, they carry out insurgencies against Muslim governments. This flows a peculiar theological position of takfirism i.e. the excommunication of fellow Muslims, which removes the prohibition on killing a fellow Muslim.

A cursory analysis reveals that all the Islamist terrorists share a basically similar worldview – which revolves around the emulation of traditional Islam (i.e. Islam as practiced by Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and his pious Companions), and the obedience to Islamic law i.e. shariat in today’s world. They share a belief that shariat is the law of God Himself, and that God alone is the legislator. They condemn any laws made by humans as shirk i.e. polytheism, and understand it as human infringement on the divine right to make laws. Thus they declare all modern governments in Islamic countries as murtads i.e. apostates, who have abandoned their religion. And according to their divine law, the punishment of murtads is death. This is their justification for unlimited warfare in Muslim lands.

Islamic law – its source and history

What is Islamic law i.e. the norms and obligations imposed by the religion on it’s followers? For that we must both understand it’s origin and sources. From the 8th century onwards, the Muslims developed a concept that the only valid source of law is God. However, Quran, the collection of Prophet Muhammad’s sayings (attributed to God) has a great paucity of rules. It does not even specify how to for example, pray the salat. Thus, Muslims were forced to rely on hadiths (literally reports) about the life and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

These hadiths were not written for a century after the death of Prophet Muhammad. Moreover, there was no central authority to collect and verify the reports from various sources about the actions and teachings of the Prophet. Any legal scholar could become a muhaddith i.e. a collector of hadith. As a result, there was an exponential proliferation of written hadiths. These reports concerned all sorts of issues – events during wars, parables told by Prophet, the personal and marital life of the Prophet, various moral teachings, the rules surrounding fasting and praying, and so on. Many individuals like Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and dozens of others (both Sunni and Shia) toured the realms, collecting reports from people. Since this was generations later, generally a chain of narrators known as isnad was also written down to ensure that these hadiths were true.

The authenticity of hadiths

Inspite of the efforts to whet the reliability, I believe that there are very good reasons to doubt hadiths in general.

Firstly, the widespread fabrication of hadiths is a fact which is accepted by Muslim sources. Imam Bukhari is reported to have heard 600000 hadiths in his career but only accepted around 7000 (i.e. 1% of them) for his collection. He rejected the rest as false or improvable. Infact, some individuals became ruthless fabricators continuously narrating new hadiths and this was observed by the contemporary scholars as well. One legal scholar remarked that he sat with the renowned Companion of the Prophet, Abdullah ibn Umar (RA) for one year, and never heard him speak of any action or saying of the Prophet. Yet, in the future, there would be hundreds of hadiths which would rest on his authority – most likely forgeries. Similarly, a scholar in 740 AD would remark, that he never heard Jabir ibn Zayd (a renowned theologian and student of the Prophet’s wife Aisha RA) report any hadiths, “and yet the young men here are saying hadiths twenty times an hour”.

Secondly, this problem may even go back to the time right after the Prophet’s death. Surprisingly, the most frequent reported narrator of hadiths among the Companions is Abu Hurayrah – who played no important role in the life of the Prophet, and moreover only knew him for the last 2-3 years of the Prophet’s life (including his final illness). Yet, in the most widely accepted collection of hadiths, Sahih Bukhari, 16% of the hadiths are reportedly narrated by him! This, of course, makes no sense, except if his name served as a ‘stock pseudonym’ for fabricators of hadiths.

The benefit of these fabrications are obvious for anyone. The pious Muslim would naturally seek to follow hadiths, which gave a great power to fabricators. Sometimes, the motives of the fabricators were very harmless – for example, traders would manufacture hadiths to promote their products (e.g. claiming that the Prophet had a great love for some particular fruits). Another was the political motive. In the first two centuries of Islam, there were innumerable political conflicts – the First Civil War (in which the sons-in-law of Hazrat Uthman (RA) and Hazrat Ali (RA) were murdered), the Second Civil War (in which Hazrat Hussayn (RA) was killed), the Abbasid Revolution, and various other uprisings and intrigues. From these conflicts also emerged the various sects among Muslims – Shia (those who believed that only Ali and his descendants deserved to rule), the Sunni (who claimed to follow the tradition of the Prophet, and gradually accepted all the early caliphs), the Kharijites (who stood in rebellion against all Khalifas from Umar onwards), and so on. Each of these sects manufactured reports to prove their correctness, as is proven from many examples.

For example, there is a hadith of the Prophet and his Companions standing on a rock which shakes, and the Prophet rebukes the stone declaring the merits of his Companions. Initially, the Sunnis only regarded Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar ibn Khattab as irreproachable leaders. Therefore in the first variant, the two Companions are Abu Bakr and Umar, and the Prophet declares that one of them always speaks the truth i.e. Abu Bakr and the other is a shaheed i.e Umar. Later, when the Sunnis accepted Hazrat Uthman (RA) as irreproachable too, in a second variant the Prophet declares that there are two shaheeds (as Uthman was murdered by Kharajites). Even later, the Sunnis accepted Hazrat Ali (RA) as irreproachable too, and a third variant declares that there are three shaheeds (as Ali was murdered as well). Then there are other obviously political hadiths – in which the Prophet Muhammad declares that Abu Bakr was the best of his Companions (to support the Sunnis), or that Ali was the best (to support the Shias). Various hadiths were fabricated to bolster the Sunni or Shia claim to caliphate. Another obviously fabricated hadith declares that an army with ‘Black Banners’ will emerge from Persia and liberate the Holy Lands of Islam, obviously an attempt to use the name of the Prophet to support the Abbasid revolution (which had a Black Army, and arrived from Persia). Unfortunately, many of these obviously political fabrications have also been included in the Canonical Hadith collections, which prove their unreliability.

Hadiths were even fabricated by the followers of various rival Sunni legal scholars to strengthen their interpretation of sharia. For example, the followers of Imam Abu Hanifa fabricated a hadith that : “A man called Abu Hanifa would come, he would be the highest of his time.” Similar hadiths, explicitly naming figures who would come much after the Prophet, were attributed to him.

To sum up the problems surrounding the hadiths, I would like to quote G.H.A Juynboll, one of the greatest hadith scholars of our times, and editor of the famous Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadiths :“ In my view, before the institution of the isnad came into existence roughly three quarters of a century after the prophet’s death, the ahadith and the qisas (mostly legendary stories) were transmitted in a haphazard fashion if at all, and mostly anonymously. Since the isnad came into being, names of older authorities were supplied where the new isnad precepts required such. Often the names of well-known historical personalities were chosen but more often the names of ficti¬tious persons were offered to fill the gaps in isnads which were as yet far from perfect. “

The utter unreliability of isnads i.e. the chain of narrators of hadiths, is also testified by the fact, that in many cases the hadiths were first attributed to later figures, and gradually projected back to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

The conclusion of Joseph Schacht, another great scholar of Muslim Studies, that “We have not met any legal tradition from the prophet which can positively be considered authentic”, rests on sound reasoning.

Now, that we have understood that the hadiths cannot be indiscriminately used as a source of knowledge about the Sunnah (i.e. the sayings and actions of the Prophet), let us now study the reliability of another major source – the early Islamic historical tradition.

The History of Early Islam

At the first glance, a lot of what we hear about the life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) from the Seerah (traditional Muslim biography) is offensive to a Muslim. We believe that the Prophet Muhammad was rahmat-ul-alameen i.e. Mercy to the Worlds. We believe that he was a perfect man, and did not, in the context do any evil knowingly. Thus, a lot of what is claimed in the early Islamic historical tradition is blasphemous. I endeavor to show in this essay that it is also false.

I would use one crucial example to prove that a very large section of the Seerah is false, specially those which are blasphemous and attribute evil acts to him.

Along with his various battles against the Meccan Quraysh who persecuted him and made him flee to Medina with his followers, the stories record him waging a series of wars against the Jews of Medina.

Firstly, he is recorded to have crushed the Banu Qaynuqa in battle. The munafiq Abdullah b. Ubayy is said to have stopped the Prophet from killing all their men, so the Prophet expelled them. The Prophet is said to have been black in anger due to Abdullah b. Ubayy – the writer wants us to believe that the merciful Prophet would have preferred to massacre several hundred people, in the face of a better option! Outrageous!

The second story is of course, much more offensive, and a frequent ammunition for the critics of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). It is also the basis of the terrorists’ claim that, in a state of war, Muslims reserve the right to kill all adult non-Muslims (with or without obvious non-combatants like disabled, blind and hermits). As per this story, when the Prophet fought a mortal battle with the Meccan Quraysh in the Battle of Trenches, and survived an attack to destroy the Muslim community, a Jewish tribe in Medina – named Banu Qurayza entered into negotiation with the invaders. Therefore, after the invaders withdrew, the Prophet attacked the Banu Qurayza. Thereafter, it is alleged that the Jewish tribe surrendered and their men, women and children were held captive. The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is recorded in the Seerah, as well as various hadiths, to have ordered the killing of all the men (including adolescent boys who had developed pubic hair) of the tribe.

He is also alleged to have captured the women of the tribe and distributed them as concubines (i.e. unmarried sexual partners who could be bought and sold) among the Muslims. As per a report in the oldest Seerah (written in 8th century, by Ibn Ishaq), some of these women were sold in exchange for weapons, on the order of the Prophet. The Prophet is himself alleged to having taken two women as concubines from among the Banu Qurayza! The very idea that the Prophet of God would capture, buy and sell women, or enter into a relationship without a marriage contract i.e. nikah with a female captive is outrageous. Many Muslims experience shock when they read this false story for the first time, and I am one of them.

The story doesn’t end here, of course. Prophet Muhammad is then reported to have expelled a third Jewish tribe from Medina known as Banu Nadir, eliminating the entire Jewish population in Medina after a battle with them.

Then, in 629 AD, the Muslim sources record the Prophet sacking Khybar, a Jewish town in Arabian peninsula. He is recorded to have ordered a man (Kinana b. Rabi) to be tortured and then killed in Khybar. Almost immediately after, the Prophet allegedly married his wife, now a captive of the Muslims, Safiyyah. As a captive, she had no choice, otherwise she was being taken by a Muslim as a concubine. To add to the story, the Prophet had allegedly kill her father and brother during the Siege of Banu Nadir in the previous story. Imam Ali (AS), the son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet, is alleged to capture a pre-pubescent Jewish girl as a concubine with the permission of the Prophet! Forced marriage has no place in Islam, in which a nikah is a contract between two willing partners – infact, there is a consensus that a pubescent girl or woman cannot be compelled by anyone in marriage. Thus, this story is also against the principles of our religion.

The conclusion that one would drive from these stories, if one believed them to be true is that the Prophet of Allah (SAW) wanted to destroy the Jewish community in Arabian peninsula, and was a complete anti-Semite. To crown this, Ibn Ishaq (the author of Seerah) even has the Prophet order Muslims at one point to ‘kill all the Jews in their power’, and on his death bed to expel Jews from the Arabian peninsula. This is believed to have been completed by Hazrat Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA) , expelling the Jews from Khybar! This has been topped by various blatantly anti-Semitic hadiths attributed to the Prophet, for example, claiming that the rats and lizards were descendants of Jews, or God turned some Jews into pigs, or that Qayamat will not come until Muslims defeat and kill Jews,

Many Muslims, immersed in these slanderous and blasphemous texts, have come out with a strongly anti-Semitic tendency to hate Islam. This is very unfortunate, because the contemporary texts unanimously prove that the Prophet and his Companions were actually friendly to the Jews, were seen positively by Jews, and ruled justly over them. This makes nonsense of the imaginary trope that the Prophet waged war on every notable Jewish community in Arabian peninsula, and captured their women. If these stories were true, the good relations between Muslims and Jews recorded in 7th century history are impossible.

A Survey of Early Texts on Jewish-Muslim Relations

Probably, the earliest Hebrew i.e. Jewish text that we find as referring to the Muslim rulers, starting from the Prophet himself, who conquered Palestine in 7th century is the The Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai. As was common in religious texts at that time, it pretends to be a much older text (in this case, describing the reported visions of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai, a 2nd century Jewish scholar). In this the author understands the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) leading the Muslim armies – as a Prophet raised by God, to liberate the Jews from the oppression of Roman Empire (who were at that time running a campaign to forcibly convert all the Jews and destroy Judaism). The author sees the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as the Messiah long predicted in the ancient Jewish books of Isaiah and David, who will restore greatness to the holy land of Israel. Let us quote the text :

“At once Metatron, the foremost angel, answered him and said: “Do not fear, son of man, for the Almighty only brings the kingdom of Ishmael (a title used to refer to Muslim Arabs) in order to deliver you from this wicked one (Edom) [referring to the Christian Romans – author of this essay]. He raises up over them (Ishmaelites) a prophet according to His will and He will conquer the land for them, and they will come and restore it to greatness, and a great dread will come between them and the sons of Esau.”

Would any Jew have an army as liberating them which had just run an extermination campaign against a series of Jewish tribes, a few hundred miles south in Arabian peninsula, only five years ago? If the Prophet, and his Companions had enslaved Jewish women and girls as concubines, even sold them in the market, after slaughtering their husbands, fathers and sons – would any Jew say that God had raised them to restore greatness? This source itself destroys the Islamic historical tradition which has slandered by the Prophet of Allah, and his Companions, and tried its best to paint them as merciless and intolerant warlords. However, this is not all.

The second part of the text shows us the true face of the just Khalifa Umar ibn al Khattab, who has been turned by the Muslim historical tradition into an intolerant monster. The Jews write –

“The second king who arises from Ishmael (i.e. Umar, who succeeded Abu Bakr) is a a lover of Israel (Israel referred to the Jewish community as a whole). He restores their breaches and the breaches of the Temple. He hews Mount Moriah, makes it level and builds a mosque there on the Temple rock, as it is said: “Your nest is set in the rock.”

Now, the fundamentalists would have us believe that the Jews saw a ‘lover of Israel’ in a man who participated in all of the Prophet’s alleged military campaigns to destroy Jews, and expelled the remaining Jews from Arabian peninsula? I call Bullshit.

Secondly, we have another Jewish text, an apparent review of the Umayyad dynasty of Khalifas. While it is brief, we have it refer to to Khalifa Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan as “restoring the walls of the Temple at the instigation of God”, referring to the place of the ancient Jewish Temple, where today stands Masjid al-Aqsa. The text, after describing a number of other rulers, breaks abruptly by describing the 8th century Khalifa Umar ibn Abdulaziz as “honest king who loved justice and hated……”.

These words are very interesting, because Muslims have always remembered Umar ibn Abdalaziz as a very pious ruler comparable to the Companions of the Prophet – Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman and Ali. What this means is that for the earliest Muslims, a king was just and honest, who also seemed just to non-Muslims like the Jewish author of the text. Therefore, the Muslim concept of just government then aligned with an impartial and universalistic meaning of the word, not the tribalist and hateful version that has come to be understood by Islamists today. Unfortunately, an Islamist today would only call a ruler pious if he tries to crush religious minorities.

Thirdly, we have a Judeo-Arabic fragment found which states that it was Hazrat Umar ibn al-Khattab who ended the exile of the Jews from Jerusalem (from 500 years since the Roman-Jewish War) and permitted seventy Jewish households to settle in the Southern part of Jerusalem. The fragment also notes how Umar worked with the Jewish scholars to mark the point of the ancient Jewish Temple, to wall it and build a dome over it. Again, entirely inconsistent with what we would expect from Muslim sources.

Now let us turn to the Christian texts which confirm the good relations that prevailed among Jews and Muslims at that point, which also refute the ruthless anti-Semitism attributed to the Prophet of Allah and his Companions.

Maximus the Confessor, a Catholic and therefore attached to the Byzantine Empire under attack from the advancing Muslim armies, remarked in one of his letters written in the 630s : “And to see the Jewish people, who think that they serve God by doing what is hated by God, who alone are the most faithless of all the peoples on the earth. And therefore they are most ready to welcome the enemy forces, ushering in, by every way and means, ( a reference to the Muslim armies who conquered Syria and Palestine at this point) the advent of the evil one”

Secondly, an Armenian Christian chronicle from the 661 AD twice references to the Jews as collaborating with the Muslim invaders. Firstly it says that, “And when all the remnants of the people of the children of Israel (i.e. Jews) assembled, they joined together (with the Muslims), and they became a large army.” Secondly, it mentions that, “I will also speak about the plots of the seditious Jews, who when they secured an alliance with the Muslims for a little while, devised a plan to rebuild the Temple of Solomon”.

Another Catholic clergyman Anastasius of Sinai reports some Jews as understanding the new construction by Muslims on the site of the ancient Jewish Temple, as in some way restoring the ancient Jewish Temple, and thus seeing it as a positive development. This of course indicates sympathy, or even alliance, between the Jews and Muslims – not the extremely violent hostility that the Muslim historical tradition would have us believe. One cannot imagine the followers of a religion appreciating it’s violent persecutors for appropriating their religious site.

Finally, I would like to quote the famous Islamic Studies professor Stephen Shoemaker on early Jewish-Muslim relations : “There is little question that in its early history Muhammad’s religious movement was closely linked to Judaism, and it welcomed Jewish members into its community even as they retained their Jewish faith, practice, and identity. The Islamic tradition itself reports this fact and is often at pains to apologize for this embarrassing early accommodation of the Jews….. , there is strong evidence to suggest that the confessional boundaries of the religious community that Muhammad founded remained fluid much longer than the Islamic historical tradition could comfortably remember. Indeed, as Donner has recently argued, convincingly in my opinion, Muhammad’s new religious community was open not only to Jews but Christians as well, who were included as full members of the community while remaining in their original faith for decades beyond Muhammad’s death”

The Relations between Muslims and Christians

Now, let us briefly understand the religious milieu of Christian Middle East, at the eve of the Muslim invasions. Byzantine Empire ruled the mostly Christian lands of Palestine, Syria, Egypt and Iraq. Among these Christians there were various sects – like the orthodox Catholics, as well as Nestorians, Monophysites and others. The Byzantine Empire identified with the Catholics, and oppressed other sects.

As the Muslims were at war with the Byzantine Empire, we would naturally expect the Catholics to oppose them. Moreover, while assessing the texts about war we must keep in mind that, war naturally entailed devastation – whoever waged it. Thus, while the earliest Catholic texts blame the Muslims for the devastation and death during the Muslim invasions, there is nothing really remarkable about it – after all the Byzantine Empire had recently fought a bloody 3 decade long war with Persian Sassanid Empire too.

To better understand the attitude and policies of the earliest Muslims towards Christians, it is important to consult the more impartial non-Catholic Christian sources, from peacetime when the Muslim rulers governed the Christian populations of conquered areas.

One of the post-facto fabrications by Muslims from the 9th century has been that Hazrat Umar (RA) prohibited the Christians from building any new churches and monasteries, and imposed a number of humiliating conditions upon them. We will see that this claim can be very easily refuted from the sources.

A Survey of Sources

Ishoyahb III, a Nestorian Bishop, wrote an exceptional description of the religious policy of the Muslim in a letter to one of the congregations under his guidance in the 650s AD : “For these Nomads (referring to Muslims), to whom God has given dominion over the world at this time, indeed are also among us, as you know. Not only are they not opponents of Christianity, but they even praise our faith and honor the priests and holy ones of our Lord and give assistance to the churches and monasteries.”

A chronicle of historical events, from 660 AD, which is written by an anonymous Christian Nestorian author, mentions the significant bloodshed during the Muslim conquests. However, the chronicle notes that Catholicos Maremmeh, the Bishop who succeeded of Ishoyahb II, was “held in honor by all the leaders of Muslims”. This also indicates that early Muslim rulers showed reverence towards Christianity, and specially Christian clergy.

We have another early Christian chronicle, probably from the Maronite sect, which makes some remarkable observations about Khalifa Muawiya (RA), who had also been a companion of the Prophet Muhammad for the last three years. We quote :

“And in the year 971 [660/61 AD], , many Nomads gathered in Jerusalem and made Muʿāwiya king. And he went up and sat at Golgotha and prayed there. And he went to Gethsemane and went down to the tomb of the blessed Mary and prayed there.”

This quote is remarkable, as it indicates, that after becoming the Khalifa, Muawiya (RA) visited and prayed at two of the oldest and most important Christian shrines – at Golgotha, and at the tomb of Mother Mary. It shows a strong reverence for the Christian religion, going much beyond tolerance.

The chronicle also records Muawiya adjudicating a debate between the Maronites and the Miaphysite sect, which would indicate a great involvement in theological disputes among the Christian community. There are other accounts too, like On the Holy Places by an English monk which relate Muawiya adjudicating in theological disputes between his non-Muslim subjects. Collectively, all of this shows both a serious interest and sympathy (as indicated by praying in Christian shrines) for other religions.

Fifth, let us examine The Book of Main Points, authored by a Nestorian monk John bar Penkaye in 687, which – inspite of all invective against Muslims as ‘barbarians’ and ‘angry and rageful’, notes their policy towards the Christian religion as such :

“For indeed, we should not consider their coming (i.e. the arrival of Muslim invaders) as something ordinary, for it was a divine act. And before calling them, he prepared them in advance to hold Christians in honor. Thus a specific order also deliberately came to them from God concerning our monastic order, so that they would hold it in honor.”

In spite of holding the Muslims in contempt, the author remarks that the Muslims hold the Christian religion, and specially their monasteries in honor. He also remarks that the Muslims did not try to convert anyone to their religion, and the Khalifa Muawiya established peace.

“And from everyone they demanded only tribute and allowed them to remain in whatever faith they wished, for among them were also Christians in no small numbers, some from the heretics, and some from us. And when Muʿāwiya reigned, there was peace throughout the world the like of which we have never heard nor seen, neither from our fathers, nor from our fathers’ fathers, so that our Lord said, “I will tempt them with this, as it is written, ‘In grace and truth iniquity is forgiven”

A Christian source from Egypt, again in the form of an ancient prophesy, writes about the Muslims:

“After some more time God will remove the yoke of the Byzantines from the country of Egypt for the sake of the orthodox faith and He will establish a strong people who will have compassion on the churches of Christ and will not offend the faith in any way, and God will chastise the people of Egypt for their sins.”

The Christian source apparently favored Muslim rule against the Byzantine Emperors, and remarks that the Muslims respected the Christian religion and did not insult it in any way.

Another Christian source, a biography of a bishop named Simon:

“Obtaining a document from the governor, Simeon approached “the great king of the Arabs,” bearing gifts, and was granted “an exalted document ordering that the rites and laws of the Christians be upheld in all the dominion of the Arabs.” Encouraged by this, Simeon embarked upon his project (to build a church). With the aid of 300 workmen despatched by the governor of Tur ‘Abdin, the task was soon completed. Moreover, “in order to honour the great king and to make the Arabs well disposed towards him,” Simeon built adjacent to the church “a large and beautiful mosque” and a school. “For all this he was held in affection and respect by the Arab rulers, and they gave him gold, silver and presents to distribute in the path of what is good”.

This text refutes the false assertion by Muslim fundamentalists that non-Muslim subjects under Muslim rulers cannot be allowed to build places of worship. Infact, in the time of Khalifas, the Muslims provided workmen to help in the building of churches, and honored Christian holy men.

In the Coptic Life of Isaac, written to commemorate the death of bishop Isaac of Rakoti, around 690 AD, we read about the Muslim ruler that:

“the king built churches and monasteries of monks around his city, for he loved the Christians.” It is written that the Coptic bishop, “gained acceptance and favour of the Emir (i.e. the Muslim governor Abd al-Aziz, the brother of the Khalifa), who commanded in all the city that none should address the patriarch except with good words, and no one should hinder him in what he desired.” The Bishop Isaac erects a church in Hulwan with the patronage of the governor.

A Christian work discussing the life of a Christian clergyman John of Daylam:

“At the turn of the century, receiving instruction from God, he went to pray in Jerusalem and “he visited the king of the Arabs, ‘Abd al-Malik, who was residing in Damascus at that time.” Curing the caliph’s daughter earned him a royal missive which announced to the governor of Beth Aramaye and Persia: “Let this holy man build churches and monasteries in our realm wherever he should wish to do so, and let him be given the expenses out of my royal treasury.” So John proceeded to Fars to live out his days in combat with paganism, founding two monasteries and a church dedicated to the Virgin Mary before his death on 26 January 738.”

Muslim Traditions also Mention early Muslim leaders praying in Churches. “There is certainly ample testimony that in the early history of the Believers movement, members of the community used Christian churches for their worship, either cooperatively or through cooption. Perhaps the most well-known example is the Believers’ use of the Church of St. John the Baptist in Damascus, which they ultimately appropriated in the construction of the Umayyad Mosque.

Yet reports of interreligious sharing of sacred space are especially prominent in regard to Jerusalem during the early years of the community of the Believers. For instance, although the relevant sources are understandably complex, particularly in light of their tension with later Islamic confessional identity, it appears that the early Believers in Jerusalem initially joined the Christians in the Holy Sepulcher for their worship. After capturing the Holy City on Palm Sunday, as Heribert Busse argues, the Believers joined in the Christian celebrations of Holy Week.” –

Professor Stephen Shoemaker

The historian Suliman Bashear has also noted other reports of Early Muslims praying along with Christians, including a report of Hazrat Umar (RA) praying in the above mentioned Tomb of Mother Mary, there are other additional examples of Muslims praying in Christian churches in Edessa, Kufa and Damascus.

Conclusion

Looking at all the body of evidence that I have examined, I come to the conclusion that the early Muslims were fairly tolerant of other religions – including the Jews and various sects of Christianity. Multiple sources confirm that Muslims prayed in Christian shrines, or helped in building Christian churches or monasteries by providing money and workmen. The Khalifa and close companion of the Prophet, Umar I ended the Jewish exile from Jerusalem and was seen as a ‘lover of Israel’.

The Muslims generally showed respect for Christianity, and particularly for Christian clergymen. Christians also played a notable role in Muslim administration, working under the Khalifas. The earliest Muslims, closest to the Prophet, were specially pious, but they felt no need to crush or insult other religions.

This stands in sharp contrast with the beliefs of the fundamentalists – that the Prophet and his Companions were mortal enemies of Jews and Christians, that they carried out a number of massacres against Jews, and prohibited Christians from building any new Churches and Monasteries. It is clear that the evil spirit of domination and imperialism hijacked Muslim historians in the 8th-9th century, which motivated them to erase the tolerance in Islam’s past and fabricate slanderous stories against the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his Companions.

Belief in a merciful God, and his good and pious Prophet, is the core of Islam. The historical traditions and records are dubious, but the spirit is crystal clear. What doesn’t accord with the spirit, should pose no problem for Muslims. We should reject them as fabrications.

It is necessary for all Muslims to understand the spirit of the harmonious policy of early Muslim Khalifa. If Muslims, and everyone else follow the true tolerant spirit of religion, then peace can be established and the demon of fundamentalism can be removed.

.    .    .