The dealings of the Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, with other religions can best be described in the verse of the Quran:

“To you be your religion, to me be mine.”

The Arabian Peninsula during the time of the Prophet was a region in which various faiths were present.  There were Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, polytheists, and others not affiliated with any religion.  When one looks into the life of the Prophet, one may draw on many examples to portray the high level of tolerance shown to people of other faiths.

In order to understand and judge this tolerance, one must look into the period in which Islam was a formal state, with the specific laws laid down by the Prophet in accordance with the tenets of religion.  Even though one can observe many examples of tolerance shown by the Prophet in the thirteen years of his stay in Mecca, one may incorrectly think that it was only due to seeking to raise the profile of  the Muslims and the social status of Islam and in general.  For this reason, the discussion will be limited to the period which commenced with the migration of the Prophet to Medina, and specifically once the constitution was set.

The Saheefah
-----------------
The best example of the tolerance shown by the Prophet to other religions may be the constitution itself, called the ‘Saheefah’ by early historians.[1]  When the Prophet migrated to Medina, his role as a mere religious leader ended; he was now the political leader of a state, governed by the precepts of Islam, which demanded that clear laws of governance be laid out to ensure harmony and stability in a society which once had been distraught by decades of war, one which must ensure the peaceful coexistence of Muslims, Jews, Christians and polytheists.  Due to this, the Prophet laid down a ‘constitution’ which detailed the responsibilities of all parties which resided in Medina, their obligations towards each other, and certain restrictions which were placed on each.  All parties were to obey what was mentioned therein, and any breach of its articles was regarded as an act of treachery.

One Nation
------------
The first article of the constitution was that all the inhabitants of Medina, the Muslims as well as those who had entered the pact from the Jews, Christian, and idolaters, were “one nation to the exclusion of all others.”  All were considered members and citizens of Medina society regardless of religion, race, or ancestry.  People of other faiths were protected from harm as much as the Muslims, as is stated in another article, “To the Jews who follow us belong help and equity.  He shall not be harmed nor his enemies be aided.”  Previously, each tribe had their alliances and enemies within and without Medina.  The Prophet gathered these different tribes under one system of governance which upheld pacts of alliances previously in existence between those individual tribes.  All tribes had to act as a whole with disregard to individual alliances.  Any attack on other religion or tribe was considered an attack on the state and upon the Muslims as well.

The lives of the practitioners of other religions in the Muslim society was also given protective status.  The Prophet said:

“Whoever kills a person who has a truce with the Muslims will never smell the fragrance of Paradise.” (Saheeh Muslim)

Since the upper hand was with the Muslims, the Prophet strictly warned against any maltreatment of people of other faiths.  He said:

“Beware!  Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawud)

To Each Their Own Religion
------------------------------
In another article, it states, “the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs.”  In this, it is clear that anything other than tolerance would not be tolerated, and that, although all were members of a society, each had their separate religion which could not be violated.  Each was allowed to practice their beliefs freely without any hindrances, and no acts of provocation would be tolerated.

There are many other articles of this constitution which may be discussed, but emphasis will be placed on an article which states, “If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise, it must be referred to God and His Messenger.”  This clause maintained that all inhabitants of the state must recognize a higher level of authority, and in those matters which involved various tribes and religions, justice could not be meted out by individual leaders; rather it must be adjudicated by the leader of the state himself or his designated representatives.  It was allowed, however, for individual tribes who were not Muslims, to refer to their own religious scriptures and their learned men in regards to their own personal affairs.  They could though, if they opted, ask the Prophet to judge between them in their matters.  God says in the Quran:

“…If they do come to you, either judge between them or decline to interfere...” (Quran 5:42)

Here we see that the Prophet allowed each religion to judge in their own matters according to their own scriptures, as long as it did not stand in opposition to articles of the constitution, a pact which took into account the greater benefit of the peaceful co-existence of the society.

Freedom of Religious Assembly and Religious Autonomy
----------------------------------------------
Given consent by the constitution, the Jews had the complete freedom to practice their religion.  The Jews in Medina at the time of the Prophet had their own school of learning, named Bait-ul-Midras, where they would recite the Torah, worship and educate themselves.

The Prophet emphasized in many letters to his emissaries that religious institutions should not be harmed.  Here in a letter addressed to his emissary to the religious leaders of Saint Catherine in Mount Sinai who has sought the protection of the Muslims:

“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.  Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God!  I hold out against anything that displeases them.  No compulsion is to be on them.  Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.  No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.  Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet.  Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.  No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.  The Muslims are to fight for them.  If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval.  She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.  Their churches are declared to be protected.  They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.  No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”[1]

As one can see, this Charter consisted of several clauses covering all important aspects of human rights, including such topics as the protection of minorities living under Islamic rule, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war.

On another occasion, the Prophet received a delegation of sixty Christians from the region of Najran, then a part of Yemen, at his mosque.  When the time for their prayer came, they faced the direction of east and prayed.  The Prophet ordered that they be left in their state and not harmed.

Politics
--------
There are also examples in the life of the Prophet in which he cooperated with people of other faiths in the political arena as well.  He selected a non-Muslim, Amr-ibn Umaiyah-ad-Damri, as an ambassador to be sent to Negus, the King of Ethiopia.

These are only some of the examples of the Prophet’s tolerance of other faiths.  Islam recognizes that there are a plurality of religions on this earth, and gives the right to individuals to choose the path which they believe to be true.  Religion is not to be, and was never, forced upon an individual against their own will, and these examples from the life of the Prophet are an epitome of the verse of the Quran which promotes religious tolerance and sets the guideline for the Muslims’ interaction with people of other faiths.  God says:

“…There is no compulsion in religion…” (Quran 2:256)

# @OP, I must say I share your views and opinion on how Nabi treated the non-muslims.

Q.60:8-9:
"Allah does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. Allāh loves those who are just. Allāh merely forbids you from taking as friends those who have fought you in the religion and driven you from your homes and who supported your expulsion. Any who take them as friends are wrongdoers."

* I firmly believe in this general principle.
.................................................


OBJECTIONS

# On the contrary, there are some Sunni documentation (ahadith, tafasir and ulama's opinion) that clearly destroy the above general principle. And I am afraid to say that these documents are the base line for which Muslim's terrorists (Mujahideen, according to them and their supporters) operate.


# As far as Salafiyyah ideology is concern, there is no difference between Mushriqun (polytheists) and Christianity and Jew, and of course every followers of other religion.

# Sunni Tafsir Ibn Kathir have this title under Q.9:5

This is the Ayah of the Sword

Surah At-Taubah, Verse 5:

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

In the tafsir of the above ayah, this Hadith is quoted:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

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

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 25
In-book reference : Book 2, Hadith 18
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 2, Hadith 25
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/2/18


# Then the following explanation:

(So when the Sacred Months have passed...), meaning,
`Upon the end of the four months during which We
prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the
grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators
wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement next,

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them),means,
on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said,

(And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they
fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. )﴿
2:191 ﴾ Allah said here,

(and capture them), executing some and keeping some as prisoners."
www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2581&Itemid=64


# Salafi ideology believe this "verse of sword" has abrogated the verse which says "let there be no compulsion in religion".

^^^

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says in his Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 28, p. 349:

"The punishments brought by the Sharī’ah for those who
disobey Allāh and His Messenger are of two types: the
punishment of the one who is overpowered – whether a
single individual or a group – as previously discussed; and
the second type is the punishment of the stubborn group,
like the one which cannot be overpowered except through
fighting. The root of this is the jihād against the disbelievers, the enemies of Allāh and His Messenger. So, everyone who knows about the call of the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, to the religion of Allāh which he was sent with, but does not answer him, it is obligatory to fight him until there is no more sedition and religion becomes for Allāh Alone."
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/375.html


# So, what happens to all non-muslims? According to this view, they MUST (OBLIGATORY) be fought, killed, captured until (or unless) they embrace Islam.

MORE THAN NON-MUSLIMS

Please note that the word “disbelievers,” in the language of
Salafīsm, refers all non-Salafīs, including Sufīs, Shi’ah and
non-Muslims generally. To Salafīsm, you have not answered the call of the Prophet as long as you remain a non-Salafi.


# The Shaykh, in Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 28, p. 264, further
emphasizes that all non-Salafīs must be brought to Salafīsm through the sword:


"Whoever turns away from the Book (i.e. the Qur’ān) is to be corrected with the iron. This is why the soundness of the religion is based on the muṣḥaf (i.e. the Qur’ān) and the sword. It was narrated that Jābir b. ‘Abd Allāh, may Allāh be pleased with him, said: “The Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, commanded us to strike with this, meaning the sword, whoever turns away from this, meaning the muṣḥaf.”
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/374.html


# In the eyes of Salafīs, all non-Salafī Muslims and all non-
Muslims have turned away from the Qur’ān. So, Salafīs
have an obligation to strike them with the sword.


# For instance, as the Shaykh says in his Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 28, pp. 499-500: it is permissible for the Salafī to kill any
Shī’ī Muslim who is a soft target:


"As for the killing of the single, overpowered individual from the Khawārij like the Ḥarūriyyah and the Rāfiḍah (i.e. Shī’ah), the fuqahā have two opinions about it. They are two reports from Imām Aḥmad. The correct opinion is that it is permissible to kill the single individual from them, like the one who invites to his sect and other similar corrupt elements, for the Prophet said: “Wherever you meet them, kill them”
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/376.html


# He also says in the same Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 28, p. 500:

"[i]If their corruption cannot be stopped except through killing, then they should be killed. But, it is not obligatory to kill every single one of them if he does not publicly show this opinion, or if there is greater disadvantage in killing him."

Their “corruption,” of course, is their rejection of the Salafī
misinterpretation of the Qur’ān.

AlBaqir:
^^^

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says in his Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 28, p. 349:

"The punishments brought by the Sharī’ah for those who
disobey Allāh and His Messenger are of two types: the
punishment of the one who is overpowered – whether a
single individual or a group – as previously discussed; and
the second type is the punishment of the stubborn group,
like the one which cannot be overpowered except through
fighting. The root of this is the jihād against the disbelievers, the enemies of Allāh and His Messenger. So, everyone who knows about the call of the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, to the religion of Allāh which he was sent with, but does not answer him, it is obligatory to fight him until there is no more sedition and religion becomes for Allāh Alone."
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/375.html

Allah (SWT) says in the Qur'an:

"Say to those who have disbelieved [that] if they cease, what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them. But if they return [to hostility] - then the precedent of the former [rebellious] peoples has already taken place.

And fight them until there is no fitnah (translated to sedition in the above quoted post) and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do."

(Surah 8:38-39)

Now if I say you are ignorant and lack proper understanding of the Qur'an, e go be like say I dey insult you...

A beautiful thread that ought to be supported with proper information with regards to the Prophet's tolerance and mercy, but you want to turn to another thing because of your ignorance!

sino:


Allah (SWT) says in the Qur'an:

"Say to those who have disbelieved [that] if they cease, what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them. But if they return [to hostility] - then the precedent of the former [rebellious] peoples has already taken place.

And fight them until there is no fitnah (translated to sedition in the above quoted post) and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do."

(Surah 8:38-39)

Now if I say you are ignorant and lack proper understanding of the Qur'an, e go be like say I dey insult you...

# First, I am not treating the surah Anfal:38-39 rather my concern is the submission of Ibn Taymiyyah. Due to his fanatical beliefs, he had used several ayah to justify his rulings even if the context of the ayah is different.


# In short your problem is the translation of the word "fitnah" to "sedition". Am I correct or you still have other ranting?


# Your Mufassir are of different opinions here:

1. Some interpreted the word "fitnah" to "shrik (polytheism)". And of course, your belief remain that all other religions except Islam practice shrik in one form or the other.


2. Muhammad bin Ishaq said that he was informed from Az-Zuhri, from `Urwah bin Az-Zubayr and other scholars that (until there is no more Fitnah) the Fitnah mentioned here means, until no Muslim is persecuted so that he abandons his religion. Ad-Dahhak reported that Ibn `Abbas said abou said about
Allah's statement,

(and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone.) "So
that Tawhid is practiced in sincerity with Allah.'' Al-Hasan,
Qatadah and Ibn Jurayj said,

(and the religion will all be for Allah alone) "So that La ilaha
illa-llah is proclaimed.'


# So, what is "sedition" if not this second interpretation?!

sino:


A beautiful thread that ought to be supported with proper information with regards to the Prophet's tolerance and mercy, but you want to turn to another thing because of your ignorance!

Of course its a beautiful thread which I voiced out but overwhelming evidences of the "concept of Jihad" as explained by Muslim's scholars especially the Salafi do not help this kind of thread.

# By the time Non-muslims start questioning, you people will do what you know best, abusing.

AlBaqir:


# First, I am not treating the surah Anfal:38-39 rather my concern is the submission of Ibn Taymiyyah. Due to his fanatical beliefs, he had used several ayah to justify his rulings even if the context of the ayah is different.


# In short your problem is the translation of the word "fitnah" to "sedition". Am I correct or you still have other ranting?


# Your Mufassir are of different opinions here:

1. Some interpreted the word "fitnah" to "shrik (polytheism)". And of course, your belief remain that all other religions except Islam practice shrik in one form or the other.


2. Muhammad bin Ishaq said that he was informed from Az-Zuhri, from `Urwah bin Az-Zubayr and other scholars that (until there is no more Fitnah) the Fitnah mentioned here means, until no Muslim is persecuted so that he abandons his religion. Ad-Dahhak reported that Ibn `Abbas said abou said about
Allah's statement,

(and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone.) "So
that Tawhid is practiced in sincerity with Allah.'' Al-Hasan,
Qatadah and Ibn Jurayj said,

(and the religion will all be for Allah alone) "So that La ilaha
illa-llah is proclaimed.'


# So, what is "sedition" if not this second interpretation?!




Of course its a beautiful thread which I voiced out but overwhelming evidences of the "concept of Jihad" as explained by Muslim's scholars especially the Salafi do not help this kind of thread.

# By the time Non-muslims start questioning, you people will do what you know best, abusing.

What do you mean by The by the time non-muslim start questioning you will do what u know best? Abusing? U actually believe Muslims are abusing non Muslims when they ask questions?

And from everything you are posting therein am not getting anything are u supporting some words there or you are making corrections to the topic at hand because am preaching the Prophets tolerance to non-muslims and I don't see any cause of your debates on it, or am I getting you wrongly?

I have being quoting the Qur'an and the Prophets from the thread, and was clearly talking about the times of the Prophet not years after he had gone because I don't understand your quoting ibn taymiyyah of late after the times of prophets against the times of the Prophets and his conclusions on treating non-muslims fairly regardless of your beliefs

AlBaqir:


# First, I am not treating the surah Anfal:38-39 rather my concern is the submission of Ibn Taymiyyah. Due to his fanatical beliefs, he had used several ayah to justify his rulings even if the context of the ayah is different.


# In short your problem is the translation of the word "fitnah" to "sedition". Am I correct or you still have other ranting?


# Your Mufassir are of different opinions here:

1. Some interpreted the word "fitnah" to "shrik (polytheism)". And of course, your belief remain that all other religions except Islam practice shrik in one form or the other.


2. Muhammad bin Ishaq said that he was informed from Az-Zuhri, from `Urwah bin Az-Zubayr and other scholars that (until there is no more Fitnah) the Fitnah mentioned here means, until no Muslim is persecuted so that he abandons his religion. Ad-Dahhak reported that Ibn `Abbas said abou said about
Allah's statement,

(and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone.) "So
that Tawhid is practiced in sincerity with Allah.'' Al-Hasan,
Qatadah and Ibn Jurayj said,

(and the religion will all be for Allah alone) "So that La ilaha
illa-llah is proclaimed.'


# So, what is "sedition" if not this second interpretation?!




Of course its a beautiful thread which I voiced out but overwhelming evidences of the "concept of Jihad" as explained by Muslim's scholars especially the Salafi do not help this kind of thread.

# By the time Non-muslims start questioning, you people will do what you know best, abusing.

AlBaqir:


# First, I am not treating the surah Anfal:38-39 rather my concern is the submission of Ibn Taymiyyah. Due to his fanatical beliefs, he had used several ayah to justify his rulings even if the context of the ayah is different.


# In short your problem is the translation of the word "fitnah" to "sedition". Am I correct or you still have other ranting?


# Your Mufassir are of different opinions here:

1. Some interpreted the word "fitnah" to "shrik (polytheism)". And of course, your belief remain that all other religions except Islam practice shrik in one form or the other.


2. Muhammad bin Ishaq said that he was informed from Az-Zuhri, from `Urwah bin Az-Zubayr and other scholars that (until there is no more Fitnah) the Fitnah mentioned here means, until no Muslim is persecuted so that he abandons his religion. Ad-Dahhak reported that Ibn `Abbas said abou said about
Allah's statement,

(and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone.) "So
that Tawhid is practiced in sincerity with Allah.'' Al-Hasan,
Qatadah and Ibn Jurayj said,

(and the religion will all be for Allah alone) "So that La ilaha
illa-llah is proclaimed.'


# So, what is "sedition" if not this second interpretation?!

You got it all wrong! The verses quoted are the same as Ibn Taymiyah's submission, the fact that there is no compulsion in religion, does not stop Muslims from fighting those who after their disbelieve, cause fitnah! It is that simple! No need for quoting all what not to understand the information here!

AlBaqir:

Of course its a beautiful thread which I voiced out but overwhelming evidences of the "concept of Jihad" as explained by Muslim's scholars especially the Salafi do not help this kind of thread.

# By the time Non-muslims start questioning, you people will do what you know best, abusing.

You voiced or or went on a ranting spree?!

I have just shown your folly above, which means, you, the terrorists, and the ignorant non-Muslims, are one and the same with respect to understanding information from the Qur'an and works of classical scholars!

And for the record, I don't do abuse, I only state facts!

balash:

And from everything you are posting therein am not getting anything are u supporting some words there or you are making corrections to the topic at hand because am preaching the Prophets tolerance to non-muslims and I don't see any cause of your debates on it, or am I getting you wrongly?

# I am not correcting anything on the post because there is nothing to be corrected there, sincerely. And I am not debating anything here. The fact is just that the view of the OP is one side of the coin as far as documentation on how "Islam" treated other religion.

# "Let there be no compulsion in religion" is my conclusion of Islamic/Prophetic message/treatment of other religion. Why? Quran says, "truth stands out clear of error". Unfortunately, when you see Hadith saying:

* I have been ordered to kill/fight people until they say La illaha illah Allah, and Muhammad Rasulullah

or interpretation of the Quran like:

* (then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means,
on the earth in general , except for the Sacred Area.


So, again what is truly the Islamic view of non-muslim?


Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/221

sino:

You got it all wrong! The verses quoted are the same as Ibn Taymiyah's submission, the fact that there is no compulsion in religion, does not stop Muslims from fighting those who after their disbelieve, cause fitnah! It is that simple! No need for quoting all what not to understand the information here!

# Of course, even according to the law of nature, anyone that fights you should be fight back.


# There is nowhere your Ibn Taymiyyah is talking about that, or "no compulsion in religion" or tolerance of other faith or view. He is clear in his statements:

* So, everyone who knows about the call of the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, to the religion of Allāh which he was sent with, but does not answer him, it is obligatory to fight him until there is no more sedition and religion becomes for Allāh Alone."

* Whoever turns away from the book (Qur'an), kill them

* The Sufi, the Rafidha etc, where ever you find them, kill them.

Like I said, Ibn Taymiyyah is found of using verses out of context in his weird rulings.


# Hijaz and Iraq was never a land of Mushriqun at the time of Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahab (an Ibn Taymiyyah diehard adherent). Majority of people there were Sufi, Shia, Maliki Sunni etc. Ibn Abdulwahab's mission was spreading "the right Tawheed" and he waged "holy Jihad" on them. The rest is history. This is what Ibn Taymiyyah was talking about.

But the prophet was not tolerance when he killed 900 jews IN A DAY. because they were non Muslims. What your say on that?

AlBaqir:


# Of course, even according to the law of nature, anyone that fights you should be fight back.


# There is nowhere your Ibn Taymiyyah is talking about that, or "no compulsion in religion" or tolerance of other faith or view. He is clear in his statements:

* So, everyone who knows about the call of the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, to the religion of Allāh which he was sent with, but does not answer him, it is obligatory to fight him until there is no more sedition and religion becomes for Allāh Alone."

* Whoever turns away from the book (Qur'an), kill them

* The Sufi, the Rafidha etc, where ever you find them, kill them.

Like I said, Ibn Taymiyyah is found of using verses out of context in his weird rulings.


# Hijaz and Iraq was never a land of Mushriqun at the time of Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahab (an Ibn Taymiyyah diehard adherent). Majority of people there were Sufi, Shia, Maliki Sunni etc. Ibn Abdulwahab's mission was spreading "the right Tawheed" and he waged "holy Jihad" on them. The rest is history. This is what Ibn Taymiyyah was talking about.

Bros, Sheikh Ibn Taymiyah clearly stated in the opening of the quote thus:"The punishments brought by the Sharī’ah for those who disobey Allāh and His Messenger are of two types: the punishment of the one who is overpowered – whether a single individual or a group – as previously discussed; and the second type is the punishment of the stubborn group, like the one which cannot be overpowered except through fighting..."

When you read "stubborn" group, what comes to your mind?! Are Boko Haram stubborn groups or not?! Should Nigeria had left them alone to continue to propagate themselves unchecked?! Are they not causing sedition in the land?! So what is wrong with the Sheikh's submission again?!

Allah (SWT) says:
"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." (Q9:29).

If it was Ibn Taymiyah that made the above statement, you would have started your epistles about how he is the brain behind terrorism and all what not. Of course the above verse do have proper explanation, especially when you read further to verse 32, which clearly states the reason to fight these people, everyone of them, including those given scriptures, based on the fact that they want to annihilate Islam and Muslims! This is what Ibn Taymiyah was restating, and he based his fatwa on the Shari'ah, not his own personal opinion.

See, all that story of hijaz this Ibn Abdul Wahab is stale, I just showed you have misrepresented Ibn Taymiyyah' position, by quoting him wrongly, and this is what ignorant people do, especially non-Muslims and the so called "Islamic" terrorist.

impossible27:
But the prophet was not tolerance when he killed 900 jews IN A DAY. because they were non Muslims. What your say on that?

Stop being so cynical, where did that happen. Always rushing to make silly attacks on the Prophet